I've heard from plenty of people about how they drive 200 miles a day or they drive 500 miles on the weekends and there's just no way in hell they can use an EV. And for those people, I say, "Fine. Don't use one." I'm okay with it.
The thing is, there are plenty of people who can live quite happily with an EV. One could even argue that these people are in the majority. Which creates an interesting scenario.
Let's imagine that, say, 60% of all cars on the road become EVs. What happens to gasoline prices? There's less demand, so if I were Exxon, I'd create less gasoline. That may affect certain economies of scale--why should I have a refinery here producing 60% less gasoline when I can shut it down and have the refinery over there pick up the slack? Of course, that means there's a higher transportation cost of the gasoline which will show up at the pump. So you might be paying more for gasoline...
There are a couple of curves out there. One is that miles per charge is increasing in EVs. At some point we will be able to travel fairly decent daily distances, and be able to recharge overnight. - of course some wag will come along and say that he has to drive nonstop from New York to SanDiego, so there shouldn't be any EVs.
Another one is that fuel prices will start to erode this base of diehards. But if someone wants to pay 10 dollars per gallon, its a free country. But it's pretty expensive already. I have a couple friends I've taken trips with, and good manners says the passenger pays the re-fule cost. One has an Escalade, and the other an F-250. I have a Jeep Patriot. I kinda get screwed because I pay more than twice the money to refuel when they drive. And yes, an Escalade is more luxurious than a Patriot, but their fuel costs are outrageous.
So I spent 3 weeks of winter in the arctic circle this year and we pulled up at the Esso station in Setermoen in Norway. There were 2 Teslas at the supercharger. I asked the guys getting their lunch at the servo about it, and one of them cracked a joke about engine block heaters.
It would seem people who whine about cold Teslas don't own cold Teslas and are just looking for excuses not to buy cold Teslas.
It's a talking point, even if a pointless point. Witness that there is a guy in here complaining about the reduced mileage for EVs in the winter, while completely ignoring the milage loss caused by butanol in winter mix which is more necessary the further North (or towards the Antarctic) you go.
If you recall, there was one Tesla that caught on fire a few years ago, and they screamed like banshees over the dangers of EVs catching fire, yet a simple search for vehicle caught fire, shows that it is a common event for petrofueled vehicles, and conveniently ignored.
It isn't like EVs are an automotive Nirvana, but some of the claims by the detractors are either purposeful lies, or plain dumb.
And you do know that internal combustion engines are used for more than transportation... anything off grid, generators, water pumps...
I do. But to my point, does the fact that internal combustion engines are used for other things beside transportation mean that they have no issues in cold weather? I'me really trying to relate what I wrote to your reply
but their range is significantly diminished which is not true of ICEs.
So, would you care to explain how I can go 400 miles between refueling in the summer, and less than 350 in the winter with my ICE car? I call that significant.
Butanol in the gas mixture. Regular gasoline - or summer mix, does not vaporize well at below freezing temperatures. So they add butanol, which will, but doesn't provide the energy to get the same mileage. This is why we should try to use up the gasoline for snow blowers and other cold weather engines in spring, and why the same engines have trouble starting and sometimes running when using summer mix gasoline in the winter.
Because they don't seem to have ever experienced the fun of keeping IC engines running in the extremes - usually cold
One could say the same about people experiencing the fun of keeping an EV running in the extremes (hot and cold). Most of those doing the discussing haven't done that either. There are problems with both and there are some extreme conditions which ICEs deal with better than EVs and vice-versa. EVs start better in cold but their range is significantly diminished which is not true of ICEs. Heat is a major issue too and can substantially reduce the life of a battery pack or electronics.
Ya'll see the video about the guy who lit a fire underneath his Tesla in order to start it in the morning?
You say you are all about Els, but I'm beginning to think you are trolling me.
The point, I was making, and won't make it again, is that Internal combustion engins have a lot of trouble to just get started in the cold. And they use electricity, except for the people who burn fires under them to get the things warm enough to start. And below, they have other problems and features. in cold weather
If you think that reduced range is a show stopper, ever wonder why you seem to get less miles per in the winter? Most blame it on ethanol, but winter gas has a lot of butanol, which has a higher vapor pressure, because "summer gas" has a hellav time igniting to run at those temperatures. But they have to change the mixture for non winter driving because the butanol evaporates, and leaves you with a lot less fluid.
So your beloved internal combustion engines also get less driving range in the winter. Everywhere, not just the far north that some think dictates how the rest us us must bend the knee .
H The number of gas stations would reduce to half.
Now imagine the situation for gas at 80% market penetration. 90%. 95%. And remember that gasoline vehicles must stop at stations; they can't "charge" elsewhere. Now think of what happens to gas prices as distribution networks get spread out and they basically lose economies of scale.
Very true, the price of petrofuel will become much more expensive, and its use will decline until it is only the vehicles that absolutely need it based on function.
The problem with this argument of course, is that if there is no petrofuel, the IC engines don't work either.
I can fly or ship and store an arbitrary volume of gasoline or diesel literally anywhere in the world. Explain to me how you do the same with electricity.
And yet, we can run power to the same places. Power lines and substations are nothing difficult to install. If you look at Google Earth, they are in many remote places. But I think I see what you are doing here.
Especially given that battery packs are highly non-standardized not to mention very heavy/bulky in the case of an EV.
Which reinforces what I am thinking
I either have to fly in a generator and fuel for it (which then ironically could have been used to power an ICE without the middle step) or I have to be near a grid. Some places don't have access to a grid and those places aren't good places for EVs for the foreseeable future. I'm as big a fan of EVs as you'll find but the ability to transport and store fuel in a relatively compact physical volume is a decided advantage of ICEs.
Yup - you are trying to power every possible internal combustion engine. There is really no need for that. Why? I kinda doubt that we need to power everything.
Taking these fringe cases of a cabin in the remote woods like the Alaskan reality shows is where we start going off the rails.
Not at all. It's just an example of cases where an internal combustion engine will continue to make sense for some time to come. Don't get to wrapped up in it. Point is that there will likely always be internal combustion powered vehicles even if EVs dominate someday.
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.
But it does not mean that everyone else has to use the vehicles that they use for general transportation. Is that cabin in the woods with only small trails the standard situation in the world? Not to my knowledge. Should we force them to use EVs? Almost certainly not. Should their situation result in not advancing EVs? A seemingly stupid question
Their four wheeler isn't legal for on road use in many places, and their snowmobile will tear it's tread apart shortly if we try to use it on a normal tarmac or concrete road.
So yeah, it's a fringe case. and almost irrelevant to the lower 48 and most other non arctic and sub-arctic areas.We can find a lot of specific cases where one or the other doesn't work, but that doesn't mean that we abandon EVs because they aren't universally applicable to every situation.
Yes, Australia - land of wide, sun-drenched PV-friendly plains - has a horrible dependence on coal-fired power. But I'm encouraged by the Tesla battery recently installed in South Australia. Baby steps are better then no steps.
Also - my bike wouldn't run on ethanol. Well, maybe 5 or 10% blend, but that stuff has proved unpopular here. My local garage stopped selling it some time ago. The Guzzi needs 98 octane, so it's premium 98 for me!
How do they bump up the octane in Australia? You don't still use tetraethyl lead do you?
The whole "EVs can't handle extreme climates or places with low population density" thing is just plain silly.
It's not a population density thing. The question is whether there is refueling infrastructure available. Go to remote parts of Alaska or Antarctica and an EV would rapidly become useless because there is simply no way to practically charge it.
The problem with this argument of course, is that if there is no petrofuel, the IC engines don't work either.
Taking these fringe cases of a cabin in the remote woods like the Alaskan reality shows is where we start going off the rails. I suppose a person who wants to live like "Life Below Zero" might be tied to petrofuels. But when the main mode of transportation is via snowmobile, it starts getting difficult to compare it to a more normal situation.
Meanwhile, in other places in the far north with higher population, the IC cars are kept running by using electricity to heat the Engines and batteries when they are off. So I wonder if the IC proponents take that double dose of energy use into account. That electricity might be used to charge an EV.
The whole "EVs can't handle extreme climates or places with low population density" thing is just plain silly.
I've always suspected that the people bringing up that argument live in places like Sothern California or Florida.
Because they don't seem to have ever experienced the fun of keeping IC engines running in the extremes - usually cold
Block heaters, battery heaters,oil pan heaters, parking meters with electrical outlets for the heaters, and heaven help you if you let that diesel engine come to winter temp.
Society is too big for cows to go away completely. Even if the vast majority of meat comes from synthetic sources, there will always be some market for the real thing.
Yes - you are correct. There are third world countries that still rely heavily on cows, and goats, that wouldn't be getting the technology until very late if ever. I didn't take that into account.
The third possibility is that if ousted for office, Trump will attempt a military coup, which will be supported by the Republican Party, in which case, the USA will become a one party system. That is pretty unlikely
This is wildly unlikely. Some elements in the GOP might call for a coup. Even large portions of Trump's base might go for it, but you know who won't? The military.
I agree the military won't put up with that. I do know that they don't tend to be regressive. It's hard to deal with extreme technology and remain a science denier. They are happy to have politicians that are willing to pay for their toys, but do not share many core republican values.
Keep in mind, I said he might attempt a coup. It would fail. But Captain Chaos seems like the type who might call for it.
Stevia is not fructose. Sweeteners fall into sugars, sugar alcohols, and sweeting agents that produce little to no glycemic pancreatic reaction.
Stevia is also blended with other non-glycemic agents, or sugar alcohols to produce a reasonable sweetener that doesn't cause the beta cells in your pancreas to go nuts in response, or otherwise raise the evidence in the A1C score.
Do your homework.
Sure, but I was posting about the sugar mafia, not Stevia.
>It will be interesting to see how they plan to pay for it.
Mexico will pay for it
No silly, when we arrest the FBI secret society members and disband the deep state, and confiscate the Pizzagate profits, Our soulmates in Russia will pay for it.
Aided of course by framed copies of O'Blama's actual Kenyan birth certificate.
Each must be the absolute best in their field, because tehy must make decisions and carry out life sustaining operations
Astronauts don't make many decisions. They carry out the tasks they've spent months training for on the ground, under overview from people on Earth who can (and do) take the technical decisions in the event of things not going to plan.
I don't disagree that this is a stupid idea, but the concept that you need your astronaut to be the best in the world at 47 different fields is also laughable.
There is a huge difference between the spam in a can model, and someone who will be living years from earth, and anywhere from 3 to 21 minutes away via radio.
These people will be astronauts only during the period ot travel to Mars. After that, they will be Martians. Those two things do not equal each other. You'll need some very competent and versatile people who are capable of making critical intelligent decisions.
With the resources necessary to raise a pound of beef (1799 gal water) and pork (576 gal water), I suppose the world may indeed hold a future in which only the ultra rich can afford the pleasure of meat on the hoof.
This is a giveaway that you probably live in the American West. Here in the northeast, 1799 gallons of water means almost nothing.
That being said, I can hardly wit until we perfect vat grown meat. The carnivore in me understands that killing other beings is just part of the natural cycle of predator/prey relationships, but not having to kill animals would be great.
The final nail in the old school meat business ill happen when they perfect synthetic bacon.
Then we'll be discussing whether cows should go extinct. I don't see chickens going away. We'll probably use them just for eggs.
"...you get Alzheimer's. If you use artificial sweetener you get dementia. Either way you're fucked."
Just get Stevia, it's not sugar and also not artificial.
Sweet.
It's sweet, until the Sugar Mafia steps in and provides "irrefutable" evidence through many "sponsored" studies that proves Stevia causes smartphone addiction and IBS.
Never put anything past Greed.
Now come on - it's only Fructose that's bad for you.
Nothing in TFS or TFA tells us who authorized the experiment, or how high up that person was. It also doesn't tell us what happened to whoever it was, or what upper management's reaction was when the fact of the experiment was discovered. Let's not start blaming everybody in the company before we find out just who's responsible for this.
So when do you think a good time would be to pass judgement? The Volkswagen representative already admitted what they did. Or are you calling fake news because it was the NYT, and you don't believe this happened at all, ever. Sorry, muchacho, they cheated on the emission systems, and performed pointless experiments. You can wait until the legal system plays out completely, but I have enough to go on that Volkswagen isn't on top of the ethics list. And I'll use that admitted info to pass judgement.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly.
I've heard from plenty of people about how they drive 200 miles a day or they drive 500 miles on the weekends and there's just no way in hell they can use an EV. And for those people, I say, "Fine. Don't use one." I'm okay with it.
The thing is, there are plenty of people who can live quite happily with an EV. One could even argue that these people are in the majority. Which creates an interesting scenario.
Let's imagine that, say, 60% of all cars on the road become EVs. What happens to gasoline prices? There's less demand, so if I were Exxon, I'd create less gasoline. That may affect certain economies of scale--why should I have a refinery here producing 60% less gasoline when I can shut it down and have the refinery over there pick up the slack? Of course, that means there's a higher transportation cost of the gasoline which will show up at the pump. So you might be paying more for gasoline...
There are a couple of curves out there. One is that miles per charge is increasing in EVs. At some point we will be able to travel fairly decent daily distances, and be able to recharge overnight. - of course some wag will come along and say that he has to drive nonstop from New York to SanDiego, so there shouldn't be any EVs.
Another one is that fuel prices will start to erode this base of diehards. But if someone wants to pay 10 dollars per gallon, its a free country. But it's pretty expensive already. I have a couple friends I've taken trips with, and good manners says the passenger pays the re-fule cost. One has an Escalade, and the other an F-250. I have a Jeep Patriot. I kinda get screwed because I pay more than twice the money to refuel when they drive. And yes, an Escalade is more luxurious than a Patriot, but their fuel costs are outrageous.
Next time someone whines about a cold Tesla
So I spent 3 weeks of winter in the arctic circle this year and we pulled up at the Esso station in Setermoen in Norway. There were 2 Teslas at the supercharger. I asked the guys getting their lunch at the servo about it, and one of them cracked a joke about engine block heaters.
It would seem people who whine about cold Teslas don't own cold Teslas and are just looking for excuses not to buy cold Teslas.
It's a talking point, even if a pointless point. Witness that there is a guy in here complaining about the reduced mileage for EVs in the winter, while completely ignoring the milage loss caused by butanol in winter mix which is more necessary the further North (or towards the Antarctic) you go.
If you recall, there was one Tesla that caught on fire a few years ago, and they screamed like banshees over the dangers of EVs catching fire, yet a simple search for vehicle caught fire, shows that it is a common event for petrofueled vehicles, and conveniently ignored.
It isn't like EVs are an automotive Nirvana, but some of the claims by the detractors are either purposeful lies, or plain dumb.
And you do know that internal combustion engines are used for more than transportation... anything off grid, generators, water pumps...
I do. But to my point, does the fact that internal combustion engines are used for other things beside transportation mean that they have no issues in cold weather? I'me really trying to relate what I wrote to your reply
So, would you care to explain how I can go 400 miles between refueling in the summer, and less than 350 in the winter with my ICE car? I call that significant.
Butanol in the gas mixture. Regular gasoline - or summer mix, does not vaporize well at below freezing temperatures. So they add butanol, which will, but doesn't provide the energy to get the same mileage. This is why we should try to use up the gasoline for snow blowers and other cold weather engines in spring, and why the same engines have trouble starting and sometimes running when using summer mix gasoline in the winter.
Because they don't seem to have ever experienced the fun of keeping IC engines running in the extremes - usually cold
One could say the same about people experiencing the fun of keeping an EV running in the extremes (hot and cold). Most of those doing the discussing haven't done that either. There are problems with both and there are some extreme conditions which ICEs deal with better than EVs and vice-versa. EVs start better in cold but their range is significantly diminished which is not true of ICEs. Heat is a major issue too and can substantially reduce the life of a battery pack or electronics.
Ya'll see the video about the guy who lit a fire underneath his Tesla in order to start it in the morning?
You say you are all about Els, but I'm beginning to think you are trolling me.
The point, I was making, and won't make it again, is that Internal combustion engins have a lot of trouble to just get started in the cold. And they use electricity, except for the people who burn fires under them to get the things warm enough to start. And below, they have other problems and features. in cold weather
If you think that reduced range is a show stopper, ever wonder why you seem to get less miles per in the winter? Most blame it on ethanol, but winter gas has a lot of butanol, which has a higher vapor pressure, because "summer gas" has a hellav time igniting to run at those temperatures. But they have to change the mixture for non winter driving because the butanol evaporates, and leaves you with a lot less fluid.
So your beloved internal combustion engines also get less driving range in the winter. Everywhere, not just the far north that some think dictates how the rest us us must bend the knee .
H The number of gas stations would reduce to half.
Now imagine the situation for gas at 80% market penetration. 90%. 95%. And remember that gasoline vehicles must stop at stations; they can't "charge" elsewhere. Now think of what happens to gas prices as distribution networks get spread out and they basically lose economies of scale.
Very true, the price of petrofuel will become much more expensive, and its use will decline until it is only the vehicles that absolutely need it based on function.
The problem with this argument of course, is that if there is no petrofuel, the IC engines don't work either.
I can fly or ship and store an arbitrary volume of gasoline or diesel literally anywhere in the world. Explain to me how you do the same with electricity.
And yet, we can run power to the same places. Power lines and substations are nothing difficult to install. If you look at Google Earth, they are in many remote places. But I think I see what you are doing here.
Especially given that battery packs are highly non-standardized not to mention very heavy/bulky in the case of an EV.
Which reinforces what I am thinking
I either have to fly in a generator and fuel for it (which then ironically could have been used to power an ICE without the middle step) or I have to be near a grid. Some places don't have access to a grid and those places aren't good places for EVs for the foreseeable future. I'm as big a fan of EVs as you'll find but the ability to transport and store fuel in a relatively compact physical volume is a decided advantage of ICEs.
Yup - you are trying to power every possible internal combustion engine. There is really no need for that. Why? I kinda doubt that we need to power everything.
Taking these fringe cases of a cabin in the remote woods like the Alaskan reality shows is where we start going off the rails.
Not at all. It's just an example of cases where an internal combustion engine will continue to make sense for some time to come. Don't get to wrapped up in it. Point is that there will likely always be internal combustion powered vehicles even if EVs dominate someday.
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.
But it does not mean that everyone else has to use the vehicles that they use for general transportation. Is that cabin in the woods with only small trails the standard situation in the world? Not to my knowledge. Should we force them to use EVs? Almost certainly not. Should their situation result in not advancing EVs? A seemingly stupid question
Their four wheeler isn't legal for on road use in many places, and their snowmobile will tear it's tread apart shortly if we try to use it on a normal tarmac or concrete road.
So yeah, it's a fringe case. and almost irrelevant to the lower 48 and most other non arctic and sub-arctic areas.We can find a lot of specific cases where one or the other doesn't work, but that doesn't mean that we abandon EVs because they aren't universally applicable to every situation.
Yes, Australia - land of wide, sun-drenched PV-friendly plains - has a horrible dependence on coal-fired power. But I'm encouraged by the Tesla battery recently installed in South Australia. Baby steps are better then no steps.
Also - my bike wouldn't run on ethanol. Well, maybe 5 or 10% blend, but that stuff has proved unpopular here. My local garage stopped selling it some time ago. The Guzzi needs 98 octane, so it's premium 98 for me!
How do they bump up the octane in Australia? You don't still use tetraethyl lead do you?
Ethanol is the least toxic booster in use.
And the amount of BS surrounding it is amazing.
The whole "EVs can't handle extreme climates or places with low population density" thing is just plain silly.
It's not a population density thing. The question is whether there is refueling infrastructure available. Go to remote parts of Alaska or Antarctica and an EV would rapidly become useless because there is simply no way to practically charge it.
The problem with this argument of course, is that if there is no petrofuel, the IC engines don't work either.
Taking these fringe cases of a cabin in the remote woods like the Alaskan reality shows is where we start going off the rails. I suppose a person who wants to live like "Life Below Zero" might be tied to petrofuels. But when the main mode of transportation is via snowmobile, it starts getting difficult to compare it to a more normal situation.
Meanwhile, in other places in the far north with higher population, the IC cars are kept running by using electricity to heat the Engines and batteries when they are off. So I wonder if the IC proponents take that double dose of energy use into account. That electricity might be used to charge an EV.
The whole "EVs can't handle extreme climates or places with low population density" thing is just plain silly.
I've always suspected that the people bringing up that argument live in places like Sothern California or Florida.
Because they don't seem to have ever experienced the fun of keeping IC engines running in the extremes - usually cold
Block heaters, battery heaters,oil pan heaters, parking meters with electrical outlets for the heaters, and heaven help you if you let that diesel engine come to winter temp.
I haven't seen it in person, but people do start fires under diesel engines. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Next time someone whines about a cold Tesla, versus reliable IC vehicles, let them see that video
Society is too big for cows to go away completely. Even if the vast majority of meat comes from synthetic sources, there will always be some market for the real thing.
Yes - you are correct. There are third world countries that still rely heavily on cows, and goats, that wouldn't be getting the technology until very late if ever. I didn't take that into account.
The third possibility is that if ousted for office, Trump will attempt a military coup, which will be supported by the Republican Party, in which case, the USA will become a one party system. That is pretty unlikely
This is wildly unlikely. Some elements in the GOP might call for a coup. Even large portions of Trump's base might go for it, but you know who won't? The military .
I agree the military won't put up with that. I do know that they don't tend to be regressive. It's hard to deal with extreme technology and remain a science denier. They are happy to have politicians that are willing to pay for their toys, but do not share many core republican values.
Keep in mind, I said he might attempt a coup. It would fail. But Captain Chaos seems like the type who might call for it.
Stevia is not fructose. Sweeteners fall into sugars, sugar alcohols, and sweeting agents that produce little to no glycemic pancreatic reaction.
Stevia is also blended with other non-glycemic agents, or sugar alcohols to produce a reasonable sweetener that doesn't cause the beta cells in your pancreas to go nuts in response, or otherwise raise the evidence in the A1C score.
Do your homework.
Sure, but I was posting about the sugar mafia, not Stevia.
>It will be interesting to see how they plan to pay for it.
Mexico will pay for it
No silly, when we arrest the FBI secret society members and disband the deep state, and confiscate the Pizzagate profits, Our soulmates in Russia will pay for it.
Aided of course by framed copies of O'Blama's actual Kenyan birth certificate.
Checkmate atheists!
exactly why I haven't dumped them :-) I keep them for the lulz
I had one of them complaining about how the Government shouldn't be in the weather business.
"Why can't the government get it's weather information from The Weather Channel just like the rest of us do?"
Solid freaking gold!
Astronauts don't make many decisions. They carry out the tasks they've spent months training for on the ground, under overview from people on Earth who can (and do) take the technical decisions in the event of things not going to plan.
I don't disagree that this is a stupid idea, but the concept that you need your astronaut to be the best in the world at 47 different fields is also laughable.
There is a huge difference between the spam in a can model, and someone who will be living years from earth, and anywhere from 3 to 21 minutes away via radio.
These people will be astronauts only during the period ot travel to Mars. After that, they will be Martians. Those two things do not equal each other. You'll need some very competent and versatile people who are capable of making critical intelligent decisions.
With the resources necessary to raise a pound of beef (1799 gal water) and pork (576 gal water), I suppose the world may indeed hold a future in which only the ultra rich can afford the pleasure of meat on the hoof.
This is a giveaway that you probably live in the American West. Here in the northeast, 1799 gallons of water means almost nothing.
That being said, I can hardly wit until we perfect vat grown meat. The carnivore in me understands that killing other beings is just part of the natural cycle of predator/prey relationships, but not having to kill animals would be great.
The final nail in the old school meat business ill happen when they perfect synthetic bacon.
Then we'll be discussing whether cows should go extinct. I don't see chickens going away. We'll probably use them just for eggs.
"...you get Alzheimer's. If you use artificial sweetener you get dementia. Either way you're fucked."
Just get Stevia, it's not sugar and also not artificial. Sweet.
It's sweet, until the Sugar Mafia steps in and provides "irrefutable" evidence through many "sponsored" studies that proves Stevia causes smartphone addiction and IBS.
Never put anything past Greed.
Now come on - it's only Fructose that's bad for you.
Eat sucrose, the healthy sugar! 8^/
Russia, russia, russia russia russia.....russia. Russia russia russia. Russia: russia russia russia.
That takes me back to a simpler time,,,,,
Badger badger badger badger badger badger badger, snaaa-aaa-ake!
So when do you think a good time would be to pass judgement?
Obviously the best time to judge VW is when you're going to exonerate, no, laud them for their conduct.
Don't you know how it works?
I know a janitor will be fired over this.
want to borrow a few of my tinfoil hat friends? I also have some anti vaxers if you really want to read outlandish stuff...
I know I should just dump them, but it's like a perpetual slow motion train wreck.
And where are you going to get such cheap and disturbing entertainment?
Just go to Breitbart and skip the middleman.
Ha! Breitbart is just a front for the Bilderberg Group. Wke up America! Do I have to start typing in all caps?
How am I going to get my news about Pizzagate, her email, the deep state and the secret society tha FBI runs?
Nothing in TFS or TFA tells us who authorized the experiment, or how high up that person was. It also doesn't tell us what happened to whoever it was, or what upper management's reaction was when the fact of the experiment was discovered. Let's not start blaming everybody in the company before we find out just who's responsible for this.
So when do you think a good time would be to pass judgement? The Volkswagen representative already admitted what they did. Or are you calling fake news because it was the NYT, and you don't believe this happened at all, ever. Sorry, muchacho, they cheated on the emission systems, and performed pointless experiments. You can wait until the legal system plays out completely, but I have enough to go on that Volkswagen isn't on top of the ethics list. And I'll use that admitted info to pass judgement.
I fail to see what the problem is. Would it have been better to test it on humans in some third-world shithole?
We were hoping they'd test it on you.