I'd say that C-SPAN is the most even-handed network. They also happen to be the least opinionated as well. I've been listening to C-SPAN radio for more than a decade, and I can't remember even one time when I heard a host utter a personal opinion. They must put those hosts through some kind of major league boot camp for not letting callers get under their skin.
Like an idiot - I forgot to mention getting info from C-Span too.
What's the matter with you? Nobody VOLUNTEERS for jury duty...
Actually, I wanted to be on it. But the two times I was called to service, I knew the arresting police. I do know a lot of the locals, so I might have ot do a federal case in a different area.
But back to this case, I'm certain that there will be a lot of interesting evidence to pore over.
It was never was about politics. There is something that YouTube doesn't want to admit. Their monetization system was being exploited by bots and scammers. My guess advertisers knew it too. Political people are trained to ignore details. The fact that everyone regardless of "political position" is complaining about being demonetized.
So they just demonetized channels that looked like they didn't fall in line with Youtube's agenda and future narrative? It's an interesting concept, but when the complaints come in from those who cannot take criticism, or do not fit a particular narrative, I'm a little skeptical of it. One of the posters here noted that hunting channels he watched were demonetized. There are definitely people out there who have an objection to hunting, and if they are demonetized, it means someone complained. I don't hunt any more, but would never object to a video of good responsible hunting.
All that being said, it is Google's property to do with as they wish. They have already shown that they have no tolerance as shown by the firing of a man who wrote illegal opinions. While there might be some questions about the legality in Google corporate's firing of the guy, there is nothing stopping Youtube from demanding that nohing be posted that resembles what he wrote.
My how politically correct Youtube has become - I wonder why.
Some of the channels I have seen demonetized would appear to have committed the mortal sin of not obeying the strictures and eschewing following the acceptable ideology of Susan Wojcicki, which also happens to fall in line with Googles, firing of a man for an illegal opinion.
Looks like the brave new world of far left liberals will have some pretty important restrictions on those who dare to commit the crim of disagreement, and this is what they will demand when they take power. I think that my sig line says it all
Of course, the triggering event might have been the British Channel 4 interciew of Jordan Peterson by Cathy Newman. Her "So you're saying (insert baiting and attack third wave feminist language) culminating in a hilarious accusation that Peterson wanted to organize society according to Lobsters, then getting tripped up demanding that Jordan not be allowed to say anything that would make transgender people uncomfortable, and him noting that she spent her time making him uncomfortable, well, she has become an internet meme, and a bit of an embarrassment.
I mean, he was in a battle of wits with an unarmed person. But people are hootin' and a hollerin', so my guess is that anything critical of Cathy Newman will soon be verboten.
I've seen more politics on HGTV than I have seen on PBS. It's rather preposterous to claim that PBS is pushing some sort of political agenda. Their news coverage is arguably the least politically biased of any network that you can watch in the US.
So much this! I listen to and watch many news sources, and PBS is definitely the most even handed. I'll hit The three majors, MSNBC CNN, RT, BBC, and even Brietbart. The main reason is that ther eis a lot of news in the world, and not all can be covered, so the very choice of reportage is going to have a little bias.
I occasionally watch Fox, but I consider that as base entertainment, along the level of Here Comes Honey BooBoo and RuPaul's drag race Superstars. I also have some concerns about who they are working for. But occasionally you get a gem like the Solar power expert who claimed that Germany was doing better on Solar Power because the country is sunnier than the USA. That's friggin entertainment gold!
People don't trust CNN, MSNBC, etc because they lie fucking constantly. If you start saying all the guys not lying are foreign government sponsored people will just start to like those governments.
Google and Facebook are tracking you even if you don't have an account.Unless you have all scripts disabled, there is lots of phoning home.
Yes, I agreed to that point when I said: "I agree with the statement that Google and FB have huge numbers of talented engineers that make privacy difficult."
The question I am asking is different. The question I am asking is what services or benefits am I denying myself by not using them (even if they can still track me)?
Hey, I was trying to answer that question - Here it is again, with explicit answers.
Unless you disable the trackers in your browser, you have every single service and benefit that Google and facebook they are still tracking you. You do not need a facebook account because they are tracking you unless you have their tracking scripts disabled.
Platform does not matter. Operating system does not matter. The scripts matter. That is the simple answer. You have all of whatever benefits you like, because you are still being tracked. You deny yourself nothing, and you are still tracked.
Other than that, I don't really worry about it, to me it's not worth the trouble. I get targeted ads all the time but I am adult enough to ignore them only buying things I need. For the impulsive it's a problem though.
It's also a problem for the impatient. The times I have to use the internet bareback it is like swimming through treacle. Bad enough that if ad and script blockers were disallowed, I'd find something else to do with my time.
We give you pictures of cats and idiotic filters of animal ears on top of your picture, you give us the ability to own your digital behavior history. most people who cared enough to find out what the deal was agreed to it and found it to be a great one.
The difference between internet pioneers and the paranoid, and the rest of the world. After we figured out how to monetize the toobz, it was all downhill in that respect.
As for me, my major personal concern is not so much being tracked, it is that the internet is IMO unusable without ad and script blockers. Pages that take forever to load, jump around when they are loading, and go to a new page and do it all over again.
I discover this anew when once a year or so, I have to disable my blockers for one reason or another, then forget to re-enable them. But I discover that error quickly.
I didn't pay for a fast connection just so I can get modem speed loading due to ads and trackers.
I have a MacBook Pro and iPhone, as well as a linux server. I don't use google or facebook at all, what services or benefits do I not have access to?
Google and Facebook are tracking you even if you don't have an account.Unless you have all scripts disabled, there is lots of phoning home.
Here's an exercise. Install one of the script blockers that will let you see what is being blocked. Then visit a few popular websites. Now look at what scripts are being blocked. Some will be obvious, but those cryptic ones - look them up. You will be impressed at just who is tracking you. And no FB account needed. Block em all, and let gawd sort em out.
I am neither you're strawman fanboi, and not brainless in any event.
And yet that's what you tried and failed to label me as. "your beloved internal combustion engines"? Seriously?
Calm down. If you actually read what I wrote I never accused YOU of being a fanboi. I simply said *I* am not one. I said *I* do not think they are superior in all circumstances. It was a rhetorical device which you failed to understand.
So if I say having a conversation with you is like having a conversation with an inbred idiot, I suppose that means that I am not calling you an inbred idiot, only saying that the conversation is like one with an inbred. Simply a rhetorical device, and no other. Yeah, that's a pretty bad approach, my boi
I wouldn't say that of course, because if I called you something, there would be no room for interpretation. As for the beloved Internal combustion engine comment, Make no mistake, I meant that. And that isn't calling you stupid,or a fanboy, or anything else. You do act as if you love those IC engines, inasmuch as this fringe case that you deny is a fringe case has any relevance to the rest of the world other than what you deem it has.
And as such you are belaboring the fringe case point you are trying to make, and are boring me. Good day sir.
"Ethanol, like methanol and Isopropyl alcohol are all drying agents"
And how do you think that drying action happens?
It absorbs the water and makes a water/alcohol mixture. Ethanol will absorb up to.5 percent of water by volume becoming saturated and will absorb no more. This is not rocket science, and more on that below.
Come back when you've got an SAE certification, because you sure have no clue what you're talking about.
Oh please, cut it with the rudeness and arguments from authority. Seriously, we don't want to go there, and its a lot better just having a conversation where people might not agree on something. I might be a asshole, but I'm not stupid, and have been a motorhead since forever.
To my knowledge, hydraulic locking is either fuel, coolant, or water - and rarely oil - getting into an engine to the extent that one or more of the pistons try to compress that liquid. It affects piston gasoline and diesel engines, and even steam engines (water lock only) If it comes from fuel, it is likely badly failed fuel injectors. Coolant from a broken head gasket, and water is usually some idiot trying to drive through a flood Some engines like radial designs are more prone to it because of their circular cylinder nature.
For ethanol and water to cause hydraulic lock, there has to be enough volume of water to form the lock to begin with. That seems logical
Then why haven't everyone had the experience?
As noted, in a sealed system like modern automotive fuel tanks, getting enough water in the fuel ltank to cause this problem means it is either unsealed allowing that 10 percent of alcohol to absorb enough water to constitute a major part of the liquid, - seriously unlikely - or the water came in with the presumptive gasoline. More on that below. Or some dunce tried to drive through water deep enough to get it sucked into the engine.
Ethanol will absorb around.5 percent of water before becoming saturated - any other water in the tank will phase separate. and drop to the bottom. Typically, this is a temporary situation, becaus when new gasoline is added, the ethanol will start to pick up water until it too becomes saturated. Eventually the water is absorbed, and the tank is now almost all fuel. So if a leaky storage tank at the gas station pumps your fuel tank with water (this is the major source of water getting into the engine) further tanks of ethanol containing fuel will absorb the water at that.5 percent saturation level until the water is gone. If you don't believe me, try http://nationalpetroleum.net/E...
This discussion reminds me of the people arguing that premium gasoline is chemically superior to regular.
Why do you act as if it's a stupid idea? The biggest correlation with wealth, more than anything else, is how old you are; and that's a fact that doesn't change by which generation you're in, family upbringing, or anything else.
Well sure. In most cases if you haven't accumulated wealth as you age, you probably screwed up, or were unlucky.
I think that is another manifestation of the anger that millenials have for boomers. People who were raised with participation trophies seem to have a problem with people who have exercised financial smarts. Should I not have the money I have invested and saved? Should that money be distributed among these young people?
Then again, I doubt many of them would ever take my path to wealth. I lived in a mobile home for 12 years while I saved money, kept furniture and cars a lot longer, had three retirement accounts, and paid off my house in 15 years. So now I have money, retired 12+ years early, and can do as I please.
Then again, I've been told I have a skewed version of finances.
Well - my apologies kids. You are going to have to create your own wealth.
You say you are all about Els, but I'm beginning to think you are trolling me.
Sigh... Yes I'm a huge fan of EVs. I'm just not a brainless fanboi who presumes they are superior in all circumstances and at all times.
I am neither you're strawman fanboi, and not brainless in any event.
Perhaps you can go back and point out exactly where I ever dared to say EV's are superior in all circumstances and at all times. Perhaps my memory is faulty.
As an internet troll, you just failed by using the same strawman on me twice, when it is obvious to anyone reading the posts that I am not claiming anything of the sort. I think you are having arguments in your head, and having me say silly things that you smash and savage with your rapier wit. Cool story, bro.
Seriously, you are completely and utterly missing the point. The point is that it simply that there will remain corner cases where EVs are not viable.
Where did you ever get the idea that I ever said that EV's are universally viable in any and all situations?
Perhaps you didn't read my post in it's entirety. Perhaps you just like finding little points to start complaining about. I wrote in the last posting
So anyhow, let's take one of these cabins in the woods. Is the owner going to have a Tesla, or Volt there? No, probably not. I suspect that outside of possibly Anchorage, theree are zero EV's in Alaska. Why? Because it isn't the type of vehicle one would be driving around there. I suspect that most of those cabins in the woods have a four-wheeler ATV for summer, and a snowmobile for winter.
Pretty simple. In that fringe case, gasoline and/or diesel are going to be the way to go. But it is a fringe case that simply isn't applicable to the larger picture.
Next time someone whines about a cold Tesla, versus reliable IC vehicles, let them see that video
So let me get this straight? In you opinion, the fact that you can start a diesel engine that have been abandoned years ago in the middle of a winter with a help a lighter and couple of pieces of wood is argument against the reliability of diecel engine?
You don't have a clue what reliability means. That is a fucking definition of reliability if you are stuck in a freezing Russian hell. Your silly EV is not going to start and you most definetely can't put a fire under it to fix that.
You learn your debate techniques from Cathy Newman?
The point is that Internal combustion engines are affected by cold. The other point is that if a person complains about reduced range in an EV, they will have to understand that Internal combustion vehicles get reduced range in the winter. The video was merely showing someone building a fire under one as an example of extreme coping with that cold issue.
I'd like to see some examples of successful publicly funded research projects.
The irony of someone typing that on a computer, communicating over the world wide web on the internet is obviously completely lost.
Not to mention the fact that some of those internet hops may very well occur via satellites.
He probably is pissed of that we have Government weather satellites, when the government should just get their weather form the Weather channel like the rest of us do.
You enjoy getting that water out of your gas tank after several years, or did you forget that alcohol is hydrophilic and it literally rips it out of the air? enjoy your fuel separation and sucking up that alcohol-water mix right into your engine.
It's one of my favorite things to see when people ask me to look at their vehicle. Water-locked engines thanks to ethanol fuels, with advanced parts corrosion that you shouldn't see for 15 years at minimum, all happening within 3-5 years.
Yeah, okay. If someone is getting a water lock due to ethanol, they are doing something really wrong. I know of no one who has experienced that. Ethanol, like methanol and Isopropyl alcohol are all drying agents. As used in Dry Gas like Heet. But to have an alcohol/water mixture with that much water speaks to some severe problems.
What is the failure mechanism? Only thing I can think of is letting the car sit for a long time with no gas cap. Modern systems are sealed, so perhaps a break in the line somewhere?
Do you have the data on E85 vehicles? Should be all of them water locking.
Slashdot Mirror
To keep a long story short
Wow - I'd hate to see your long ones!.
I'd say that C-SPAN is the most even-handed network. They also happen to be the least opinionated as well. I've been listening to C-SPAN radio for more than a decade, and I can't remember even one time when I heard a host utter a personal opinion. They must put those hosts through some kind of major league boot camp for not letting callers get under their skin.
Like an idiot - I forgot to mention getting info from C-Span too.
Anyone who doesn't trust the semi-official propaganda organs is a bumpkin who believes in lizard people!!1!
At least I'm improving. I used to be a Supercilious cock-a-whoop!
What's the matter with you? Nobody VOLUNTEERS for jury duty...
Actually, I wanted to be on it. But the two times I was called to service, I knew the arresting police. I do know a lot of the locals, so I might have ot do a federal case in a different area.
But back to this case, I'm certain that there will be a lot of interesting evidence to pore over.
It was never was about politics. There is something that YouTube doesn't want to admit. Their monetization system was being exploited by bots and scammers. My guess advertisers knew it too. Political people are trained to ignore details. The fact that everyone regardless of "political position" is complaining about being demonetized.
So they just demonetized channels that looked like they didn't fall in line with Youtube's agenda and future narrative? It's an interesting concept, but when the complaints come in from those who cannot take criticism, or do not fit a particular narrative, I'm a little skeptical of it. One of the posters here noted that hunting channels he watched were demonetized. There are definitely people out there who have an objection to hunting, and if they are demonetized, it means someone complained. I don't hunt any more, but would never object to a video of good responsible hunting.
All that being said, it is Google's property to do with as they wish. They have already shown that they have no tolerance as shown by the firing of a man who wrote illegal opinions. While there might be some questions about the legality in Google corporate's firing of the guy, there is nothing stopping Youtube from demanding that nohing be posted that resembles what he wrote.
Sounds like time for another service to start. Can't disagree with the snowflakes, they'll get booboo feelings. Give em all a participation trophy.
.........and with that, you just failed jury selection.
I promise to bring along paper towels for everyone though! So unfair...
Some of the channels I have seen demonetized would appear to have committed the mortal sin of not obeying the strictures and eschewing following the acceptable ideology of Susan Wojcicki, which also happens to fall in line with Googles, firing of a man for an illegal opinion.
Looks like the brave new world of far left liberals will have some pretty important restrictions on those who dare to commit the crim of disagreement, and this is what they will demand when they take power. I think that my sig line says it all
Of course, the triggering event might have been the British Channel 4 interciew of Jordan Peterson by Cathy Newman. Her "So you're saying (insert baiting and attack third wave feminist language) culminating in a hilarious accusation that Peterson wanted to organize society according to Lobsters, then getting tripped up demanding that Jordan not be allowed to say anything that would make transgender people uncomfortable, and him noting that she spent her time making him uncomfortable, well, she has become an internet meme, and a bit of an embarrassment.
I mean, he was in a battle of wits with an unarmed person. But people are hootin' and a hollerin', so my guess is that anything critical of Cathy Newman will soon be verboten.
I've seen more politics on HGTV than I have seen on PBS. It's rather preposterous to claim that PBS is pushing some sort of political agenda. Their news coverage is arguably the least politically biased of any network that you can watch in the US.
So much this! I listen to and watch many news sources, and PBS is definitely the most even handed. I'll hit The three majors, MSNBC CNN, RT, BBC, and even Brietbart. The main reason is that ther eis a lot of news in the world, and not all can be covered, so the very choice of reportage is going to have a little bias.
I occasionally watch Fox, but I consider that as base entertainment, along the level of Here Comes Honey BooBoo and RuPaul's drag race Superstars. I also have some concerns about who they are working for. But occasionally you get a gem like the Solar power expert who claimed that Germany was doing better on Solar Power because the country is sunnier than the USA. That's friggin entertainment gold!
People don't trust CNN, MSNBC, etc because they lie fucking constantly. If you start saying all the guys not lying are foreign government sponsored people will just start to like those governments.
Back to Infowars for you, BillyBob!
I volunteer to be on that jury, and demand they produce every bit of the evidence!
Google and Facebook are tracking you even if you don't have an account.Unless you have all scripts disabled, there is lots of phoning home.
Yes, I agreed to that point when I said: "I agree with the statement that Google and FB have huge numbers of talented engineers that make privacy difficult." The question I am asking is different. The question I am asking is what services or benefits am I denying myself by not using them (even if they can still track me)?
Hey, I was trying to answer that question - Here it is again, with explicit answers.
Unless you disable the trackers in your browser, you have every single service and benefit that Google and facebook they are still tracking you. You do not need a facebook account because they are tracking you unless you have their tracking scripts disabled.
Platform does not matter. Operating system does not matter. The scripts matter. That is the simple answer. You have all of whatever benefits you like, because you are still being tracked. You deny yourself nothing, and you are still tracked.
Targeted ads are better than random ads. At least they show you things you might like.
More like things you already bought.
Other than that, I don't really worry about it, to me it's not worth the trouble. I get targeted ads all the time but I am adult enough to ignore them only buying things I need. For the impulsive it's a problem though.
It's also a problem for the impatient. The times I have to use the internet bareback it is like swimming through treacle. Bad enough that if ad and script blockers were disallowed, I'd find something else to do with my time.
We give you pictures of cats and idiotic filters of animal ears on top of your picture, you give us the ability to own your digital behavior history. most people who cared enough to find out what the deal was agreed to it and found it to be a great one.
The difference between internet pioneers and the paranoid, and the rest of the world. After we figured out how to monetize the toobz, it was all downhill in that respect.
As for me, my major personal concern is not so much being tracked, it is that the internet is IMO unusable without ad and script blockers. Pages that take forever to load, jump around when they are loading, and go to a new page and do it all over again.
I discover this anew when once a year or so, I have to disable my blockers for one reason or another, then forget to re-enable them. But I discover that error quickly.
I didn't pay for a fast connection just so I can get modem speed loading due to ads and trackers.
I have a MacBook Pro and iPhone, as well as a linux server. I don't use google or facebook at all, what services or benefits do I not have access to?
Google and Facebook are tracking you even if you don't have an account.Unless you have all scripts disabled, there is lots of phoning home.
Here's an exercise. Install one of the script blockers that will let you see what is being blocked. Then visit a few popular websites. Now look at what scripts are being blocked. Some will be obvious, but those cryptic ones - look them up. You will be impressed at just who is tracking you. And no FB account needed. Block em all, and let gawd sort em out.
I am neither you're strawman fanboi, and not brainless in any event.
And yet that's what you tried and failed to label me as. "your beloved internal combustion engines"? Seriously?
Calm down. If you actually read what I wrote I never accused YOU of being a fanboi. I simply said *I* am not one. I said *I* do not think they are superior in all circumstances. It was a rhetorical device which you failed to understand.
So if I say having a conversation with you is like having a conversation with an inbred idiot, I suppose that means that I am not calling you an inbred idiot, only saying that the conversation is like one with an inbred. Simply a rhetorical device, and no other. Yeah, that's a pretty bad approach, my boi
I wouldn't say that of course, because if I called you something, there would be no room for interpretation. As for the beloved Internal combustion engine comment, Make no mistake, I meant that. And that isn't calling you stupid ,or a fanboy, or anything else. You do act as if you love those IC engines, inasmuch as this fringe case that you deny is a fringe case has any relevance to the rest of the world other than what you deem it has.
And as such you are belaboring the fringe case point you are trying to make, and are boring me. Good day sir.
back in the basement gramps!
No, more like the suite.. Getting ready for a cross country vacation, and unless you are unlucky, you'll be here some day. Enjoy!
"Ethanol, like methanol and Isopropyl alcohol are all drying agents"
And how do you think that drying action happens?
It absorbs the water and makes a water/alcohol mixture. Ethanol will absorb up to .5 percent of water by volume becoming saturated and will absorb no more. This is not rocket science, and more on that below.
Come back when you've got an SAE certification, because you sure have no clue what you're talking about.
Oh please, cut it with the rudeness and arguments from authority. Seriously, we don't want to go there, and its a lot better just having a conversation where people might not agree on something. I might be a asshole, but I'm not stupid, and have been a motorhead since forever.
To my knowledge, hydraulic locking is either fuel, coolant, or water - and rarely oil - getting into an engine to the extent that one or more of the pistons try to compress that liquid. It affects piston gasoline and diesel engines, and even steam engines (water lock only) If it comes from fuel, it is likely badly failed fuel injectors. Coolant from a broken head gasket, and water is usually some idiot trying to drive through a flood Some engines like radial designs are more prone to it because of their circular cylinder nature .
For ethanol and water to cause hydraulic lock, there has to be enough volume of water to form the lock to begin with. That seems logical
Then why haven't everyone had the experience?
As noted, in a sealed system like modern automotive fuel tanks, getting enough water in the fuel ltank to cause this problem means it is either unsealed allowing that 10 percent of alcohol to absorb enough water to constitute a major part of the liquid, - seriously unlikely - or the water came in with the presumptive gasoline. More on that below. Or some dunce tried to drive through water deep enough to get it sucked into the engine.
Ethanol will absorb around .5 percent of water before becoming saturated - any other water in the tank will phase separate. and drop to the bottom. Typically, this is a temporary situation, becaus when new gasoline is added, the ethanol will start to pick up water until it too becomes saturated. Eventually the water is absorbed, and the tank is now almost all fuel. So if a leaky storage tank at the gas station pumps your fuel tank with water (this is the major source of water getting into the engine) further tanks of ethanol containing fuel will absorb the water at that .5 percent saturation level until the water is gone. If you don't believe me, try http://nationalpetroleum.net/E...
This discussion reminds me of the people arguing that premium gasoline is chemically superior to regular.
Why do you act as if it's a stupid idea? The biggest correlation with wealth, more than anything else, is how old you are; and that's a fact that doesn't change by which generation you're in, family upbringing, or anything else.
Well sure. In most cases if you haven't accumulated wealth as you age, you probably screwed up, or were unlucky.
I think that is another manifestation of the anger that millenials have for boomers. People who were raised with participation trophies seem to have a problem with people who have exercised financial smarts. Should I not have the money I have invested and saved? Should that money be distributed among these young people?
Then again, I doubt many of them would ever take my path to wealth. I lived in a mobile home for 12 years while I saved money, kept furniture and cars a lot longer, had three retirement accounts, and paid off my house in 15 years. So now I have money, retired 12+ years early, and can do as I please.
Then again, I've been told I have a skewed version of finances. Well - my apologies kids. You are going to have to create your own wealth.
You say you are all about Els, but I'm beginning to think you are trolling me.
Sigh... Yes I'm a huge fan of EVs. I'm just not a brainless fanboi who presumes they are superior in all circumstances and at all times.
I am neither you're strawman fanboi, and not brainless in any event.
Perhaps you can go back and point out exactly where I ever dared to say EV's are superior in all circumstances and at all times. Perhaps my memory is faulty.
As an internet troll, you just failed by using the same strawman on me twice, when it is obvious to anyone reading the posts that I am not claiming anything of the sort. I think you are having arguments in your head, and having me say silly things that you smash and savage with your rapier wit. Cool story, bro.
Seriously, you are completely and utterly missing the point. The point is that it simply that there will remain corner cases where EVs are not viable.
Where did you ever get the idea that I ever said that EV's are universally viable in any and all situations?
Perhaps you didn't read my post in it's entirety. Perhaps you just like finding little points to start complaining about. I wrote in the last posting
So anyhow, let's take one of these cabins in the woods. Is the owner going to have a Tesla, or Volt there? No, probably not. I suspect that outside of possibly Anchorage, theree are zero EV's in Alaska. Why? Because it isn't the type of vehicle one would be driving around there. I suspect that most of those cabins in the woods have a four-wheeler ATV for summer, and a snowmobile for winter.
Pretty simple. In that fringe case, gasoline and/or diesel are going to be the way to go. But it is a fringe case that simply isn't applicable to the larger picture.
So let me get this straight? In you opinion, the fact that you can start a diesel engine that have been abandoned years ago in the middle of a winter with a help a lighter and couple of pieces of wood is argument against the reliability of diecel engine?
You don't have a clue what reliability means. That is a fucking definition of reliability if you are stuck in a freezing Russian hell. Your silly EV is not going to start and you most definetely can't put a fire under it to fix that.
You learn your debate techniques from Cathy Newman?
The point is that Internal combustion engines are affected by cold. The other point is that if a person complains about reduced range in an EV, they will have to understand that Internal combustion vehicles get reduced range in the winter. The video was merely showing someone building a fire under one as an example of extreme coping with that cold issue.
I'd like to see some examples of successful publicly funded research projects.
The irony of someone typing that on a computer, communicating over the world wide web on the internet is obviously completely lost.
Not to mention the fact that some of those internet hops may very well occur via satellites.
He probably is pissed of that we have Government weather satellites, when the government should just get their weather form the Weather channel like the rest of us do.
"Ethanol is the least toxic booster in use."
You enjoy getting that water out of your gas tank after several years, or did you forget that alcohol is hydrophilic and it literally rips it out of the air? enjoy your fuel separation and sucking up that alcohol-water mix right into your engine.
It's one of my favorite things to see when people ask me to look at their vehicle. Water-locked engines thanks to ethanol fuels, with advanced parts corrosion that you shouldn't see for 15 years at minimum, all happening within 3-5 years.
Yeah, okay. If someone is getting a water lock due to ethanol, they are doing something really wrong. I know of no one who has experienced that. Ethanol, like methanol and Isopropyl alcohol are all drying agents. As used in Dry Gas like Heet. But to have an alcohol/water mixture with that much water speaks to some severe problems.
What is the failure mechanism? Only thing I can think of is letting the car sit for a long time with no gas cap. Modern systems are sealed, so perhaps a break in the line somewhere? Do you have the data on E85 vehicles? Should be all of them water locking.