Island Life: BP-Fuelled Rage
205 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 Newer→ Last
-
Having watched the apparently homicidal maniacs that drive buses in wellington, I'd dispute the buses driven slowly and responsibly bit.
Heh. I was just going to post something about some bus drivers in Auckland thinking they're Dale Earnhardt. (And I spend a bit of time on Auckland buses, so I'm speaking from experience.)
-
Let's amicably agree to disagree.
And get back to work? To hell with that - this just in: SUVs give you AIDS!
I kid, I kid. Agree to disagree works for me.
-
It is also more likely, due to inertia, to have an accident in the first place.
In the case of 4wd's having, in most cases, a higher COG than most cars then you are right. However, doncha just love that word? However, as I said, if you are referring to the weight of the vehicle having a bearing on the vehicle "having" an accident then you are mistaken. It is inherent in the design of vehicles that the stopping distance is roughly equal between both models and type. For instance, the heavier the vehicle the more weight and therefore friction onto the road surface, this along with the fitting of a tyre with the correct "footprint" this ensures that the vehicle could stop in a proscribed distance. If it doesn't comply then it's not worth a COC (certificate of Compliance)
So there, Na na na na na. ;-) -
Anyway, I'm so over land travel, I'm trading the SUV for a helicopter.
-
For instance, the heavier the vehicle the more weight and therefore friction onto the road surface, this along with the fitting of a tyre with the correct "footprint" this ensures that the vehicle could stop in a proscribed distance.
I'm no physicist, but surely it's not the amount of contact with the road that stops a vehicle, but the contact with the brake pads/feet? A loaded truck certainly takes longer to stop than an unloaded truck.
-
I'm no physicist, but surely it's not the amount of contact with the road that stops a vehicle, but the contact with the brake pads/feet? A loaded truck certainly takes longer to stop than an unloaded truck.
Contact with the brake pads and shoes (where fitted) is essential when braking, when the brake is applied this should definitely happen and the effect should be that the wheel stops rotating, regardless of the torque applied to the wheel by the road surface. Once the friction between the road surface and the tyre is broken the coefficient of friction drops dramatically causing skidding. This can be overcome by a method known as cadence braking, when the pressure on the brake pedal is reduced until the wheel stops skidding and is then reapplied, rapidly. this effect is reproduced in ABS systems to reduce braking distance. As for a loaded truck taking longer to stop. The weight of the load increases the friction between the road surface and the tyre. It is this ratio that determines the size of the brake shoe/pad and the required footprint of the tyre.
As for Helicopters, the counter rotation caused by the powered lift rotor is stabilised by the powered tail rotor. The power of the lift rotor and the "friction" of the air are used to calculate the required power/size of the tail rotor. The physics are the same as for the weight/stopping ratio as above.
Like my Mum said "Everybody loves a smart arse"
;-) -
I was just going to post something about some bus drivers in Auckland thinking they're Dale Earnhardt.
Quite a few of them. They treat red lights as advisory on a regular basis, too, which is quite scary when one is riding in them.
To be fair, as a cyclist I find bus drivers less obnoxious than car drivers most of the time. I've had a Link bus follow me over Grafton Bridge at a reasonable distance (I was doing 35+km/h, which probably helped), which makes a difference from the car drivers who routinely follow me at a distance that would be tailgating if I were in a car, even when I'm doing 40 (with GB's 30km/h limit).
Of course, buses are also a lot scarier when they misbehave. I'll pick being cut off by a car over being cut off by a bus every time, if only because a car's only about three times my length instead something closer to 10 times.
-
Exactly what freedom of choice does someone hit by one of those things have?
I don't follow this - they have the same freedom of choice as anyone else don't they? Choice of what?
Freedom of choice is not a euphemism for chances of survival & those chances depend on a lot of factors.I was being partly ironic, but there are "active" freedoms - the freedom to use an SUV - and "passive" freedoms, such as the freedom not to be threatened or placed in situations of unnecessary/avoidable risk.
Prejudiced busybody? Maybe, but actually I'm just being selfish - I'd rather not have someone's also selfish exercise of freedom literally impact on me. No freedom can be absolute if it starts to affect the safety of others. I've used the ad hominem myself and I can't criticise you for using it as well, but that is not the sole content or intent of my argument.
European governments have realised that pedestrians vote and have introduced some years ago now design standards for cars and other vehicles to reduce the harm done to pedestrians and other cars in accidents. One visible effect of this is the tendency to bulbous noses apparent in recent cars, intended to cause pedestrians to fall back over the bonnet and roll on top of the car, dissipating the impact forces somewhat rather than simply be, er, splatted I suppose. It also reflects the requirement to have a set gap between engine and suspension components and the bodyshell to allow it to crumple if someone hits it. Jaguar's XK (a low-nosed GT) has a pyrotechnic bonnet that raises in the case of a bumper impact, providing a ramp and a buffer for tumbling pedestrians. External airbags have been proposed.
SUVs are still very problematic, with their bumpers and bluff noses hitting at a higher level, they're more likely to cause massive trauma to the body without allowing one to roll over the bonnet.
If I'm going to be hit, then I'd rather someone had exercised their freedom to buy a safer car.
Steve, regarding stoping and braking distances, this refers only to straight, forward movement, not turns, skids or rolls (have you heard of Mercedes' first generation A-class' failure in the "moose test"?) Basically it's a swerve-to-avoid test to avoid mooses, (meese?) used in Scandinavian countries. Embarrassingly, this compact German technological marvel tumbled. Several years later, the first generation Smart also ran into similar difficulties. The A-class successor will abandon the current layout according to recent M-B press releases. So it's not just big SUVs...
Large tyres are good on dry surfaces, but are more prone to aquaplane on wet, complicating matters.
You can't get past the fact that a high CoG and high mass is inherently a less stable and less safe configuration, both for drivers and for other road users.
As for the NCAP values, they cover side and asymmetric collisions as well as usually-considered head-on, but to suppose that that says anything about the safety of the car overall is wrong - they say everything about the crash itself and nothing about the probability of having that crash. For the govt. to put that as a safety rating on their website is naive.
-
Points taken about buses, all... and no doubt people have lots of scare stories about white vans on the M25.
-
M25 Three
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe M25 Three are Raphael Rowe, Michael Davis, and Randolph Johnson, who were incorrectly jailed for life, following a miscarriage of justice at the Old Bailey in March 1990 for a series of attacks and robberies around the M25, London's orbital motorway, on a night in December, 1988. Michael Davis has always protested his innocence.
They were incorrectly found guilty of the murder of hairdresser Peter Hurburgh, who was dragged from his car at gunpoint with his homosexual lover, tied up and beaten, and then suffered a fatal heart attack.
Eventually, the case went to the European Court of Human Rights, who ruled that the three men had not been given a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, stating that their trial had been "compromised" by the prosecution's use of the Public Interest Immunity certificates to withhold evidence useful to the defence.
Raphael Rowe is now an investigative journalist for the BBC and he is a member of the Advisory Council of the National College of Music.
Onr thing they don't say is that Raphael Rowe was a White Van Man
-
And as any reader of Pratchett and Gaiman knows, the plan for the M25 was inspired by the demon Crowley and is an ancient Tibetan symbol of evil.
-
One of the things that makes the M25 interesting is the Dartford Crossing cosisting of two tunnels and a bridge, The Queen Elizabeth II bridge. This, actually means that the M25 is not a complete loop as most think as the tunnels, bridge and Interlinking roads form the A282
I have been known to entertan many at dinner parties with my knowledge, sometimes until they leave. -
I have been known to entertan many at dinner parties with my knowledge, sometimes until they leave.
Did you know that while Reg Smeaton claimed that there is no proper name for the backs of the knees ( Vivian Stanshall, Sir Henry at Rawlinson End, album not the film), they are in fact called the popliteal fasciae.
-
I Know that word;
the tactics of the right, including the actions of National in the house is to shout down any opposition to their wants, the fascicle protest at parliament was a case in point.
Posted at 12:16PM on 22 Nov 07. By Steve BarnesFrom Here
Ohh, self quoting makes me weak at the Knees. ;-) -
42! The universe and everything.
-
fascicle
Is that a frozen Nazi?
One of my faves in the Konspiracy Krowd is "beaurocrat", which I suppose is a particularly dandyish and probably philandering office worker.
42!
Bugger, can't top that.
-
Is that a frozen Nazi?
On a stick?
You HAD to Godwin it didn't you? ;-)
Here's an old thing that may have paved the way for Godwin himsels.
How to Win Arguments
I argue very well. Ask any of my remaining friends. I can win an argument on any topic, against any opponent. People know this, and steer clear of me at parties. Often, as a sign of their great respect, they don't even invite me. You too can win arguments. Simply follow these rules:
Drink Liquor.
Suppose you're at a party and some hotshot intellectual is expounding on the economy of Peru, a subject you know nothing about. If you're drinking some health-fanatic drink like grapefruit juice, you'll hang back, afraid to display your ignorance, while the hotshot enthralls your date. But if you drink several large martinis, you'll discover you have STRONG VIEWS about the Peruvian economy. You'll be a WEALTH of information. You'll argue forcefully, offering searing insights and possibly upsetting furniture. People will be impressed. Some may leave the room.
Make things up.
Suppose, in the Peruvian economy argument, you are trying to prove Peruvians are underpaid, a position you base solely on the fact that YOU are underpaid, and you're damned if you're going to let a bunch of Peruvians be better off. DON'T say: "I think Peruvians are underpaid." Say: "The average Peruvians salary in 1981 dollars adjusted for the revised tax base is $1,452.81 per annum, which is $836.07 before the mean gross poverty level."
NOTE: Always make up exact figures.
If an opponent asks you where you got your information, make THAT up, too. Say: "This information comes from Dr. Hovel T. Moon's study for the Buford Commission published May 9, 1982. Didn't you read it?" Say this in the same tone of voice you would use to say "You left your soiled underwear in my bath house."
Use meaningless but weightily-sounding words and phrases.
Memorize this list:
Let me put it this way
In terms of
Vis-a-vis
Per se
As it were
Qua
So to speakYou should also memorize some Latin abbreviations such as "Q.E.D.," "e.g.," and "i.e." These are all short for "I speak Latin, and you do not."
Here's how to use these words and phrases. Suppose you want to say: "Peruvians would like to order appetizers more often, but they don't have enough money."
You never win arguments talking like that. But you WILL win if you say: "Let me put it this way. In terms of appetizers vis-a-vis Peruvians qua Peruvians, they would like to order them more often, so to speak, but they do not have enough money per se, as it were. Q.E.D."
Only a fool would challenge that statement.
Use snappy and irrelevant comebacks.
You need an arsenal of all-purpose irrelevant phrases to fire back at your opponents when they make valid points. The best are:
You're begging the question.
You're being defensive.
Don't compare apples and oranges.
What are your parameters?This last one is especially valuable. Nobody, other than mathematicians, has the vaguest idea what "parameters" means.
Here's how to use your comebacks:
You say: "As Abraham Lincoln said in 1873..."
Your opponent says: "Lincoln died in 1865."
You say: "You're begging the question."OR
You say: "Liberians, like most Asians..."
Your opponents says: "Liberia is in Africa."
You say: "You're being defensive."
Compare your opponent to Adolf Hitler.
This is your heavy artillery, for when your opponent is obviously right and you are spectacularly wrong. Bring Hitler up subtly. Say: "That sounds suspiciously like something Adolf Hitler might say" or "You certainly do remind me of Adolf Hitler."So that's it: you now know how to out-argue anybody.
NOTE: Do not try to pull any of this on people who generally carry weapons.
[Author unknown]
-
"Author unknown" is an anagram of Dave Barry.
Yes it is! -
Drink Liquor.
Currently Johnnie Walker Black Label - on special at T' Mill (definitely no trouble there). However, I am a very mellow drunk. I'm much more opinionated and argumentative when I'm knurd.
As for the rest, completely fucking brilliant and not at all idiotic.
I might add ammendments along the lines of "excuse me, but I have letters after my name" or hints at some spurious and fictional educational or professional experience, preferably involving acronyms (acronyms are cool), ie. eg., so to speak, "Actually, when we conducted research on this at JPL, we found that the right consistency of custard was in fact 14.7 Kelvins."
Note the institional "we". That is essential.
Another useful phrase is "Yes, but what exactly do you mean by [insert random word here], exactly?" A common variant is "Ah yes, but of course that depends on the commonly accepted interpretation of [whatever], when in fact..." The latter is arguably tactically superior as it allows one to plough on without interjection, but on the other hand, there is the option of the simultaneously accepting and dismissive "Of course that is true under certain given circumstances, but on the other hand..."
Then there is the casual name-dropping: "Of course we had terrific fun when we turbocharged Steve's wheelchair without informing him, and then reprogrammed his voice synthesiser so that it had a Cornish accent... 'and so, when the virtual particle pairs appear at the event horizon, ooh-aarh' it would say, and then there was that time he came to the office fancy dress party as Davros - ah, what larks!"
And of course there's the perennial "speaking as a [insert completely implausible and irrelevant minority or area of professional expertise here]", ie, eg., for the purposes of demonstration or illustration of my argument, so to speak, as it were, "Speaking as a professionally qualified gay whale working in the field of obstretrics, I must say that Kirk would in fact be superior to Piccard in dealing with the Borg because..."
In academia, you learn all of these tricks.
-
Then there's "Allow me, for a moment, to deconstruct the premises of that argument: to begin with, you assume that the definite article, 'the' applies in this case - as it might - but as Lacan has shown, there is an inherent phallicism in the very concept of logos expressed by the application of the said article..."
All too horribly familiar.
-
And of course I don't have to remind you of Alan Sokal
That was just toooooooooooo good. -
Hmmm, I am definitely less and less knurd now, so the inspiration is coming thick and fast and thus another idea has come to me which might be pertinent to this dicsussion is that there is yet another trick that may be applicable under discursive circumstances in order to facilitate the stated or at least implicit gratificatory (neologisms, I might add, are allowable - and indeed very useful as tools of befuddlement when directed against one's interlocutors) project of argumentative pre-eminence is to construct an inordinately long sentence, which has the multi-faceted advantage of both creating a 'wall of words', as it were, that disallows easy interjection by leaving perpetually hanging the latter stages of the descriptive and elaborative sentence so that anyone who does interject would appear not only rude in doing so but also intellectually deficient in being unable to hold in their mind all of the various facts, data and propositions embodied - ot, I should say, encapsulated in the original sentence (remind me, please, to describe to you later the symptoms of Korsakov's Syndrome, which is caused by brain damage preventing the formation of long-term memory, as as memorably - haha - presented in an artistic narrative form in the film, Memento, directed by Christopher Nolan, I believe - he later went on to direct Batman Begins and I must say that I am looking forward to the sequel, The Dark Knight, featuring Heath Ledger as the Joker, not only because it will be his - sadly - final film appearance {he is - or was - a very fine and underrated actor}, but because it appears - from the trailers at least - to be an interesting interpreation of the role, quite different to Jack Nicholson's in Burton's film and which seems to allude to the performance of Malcolm McDowell in A Clockwork Orange not to mention the dark and quite disturbing presentation in Miller's classic graphic novel The Dark Knight Returns - that oc course was published in nineteen eighty-six, which was, I must say, a watershed year for graphic nobvels as it also saw the publication of Moore's Watchmen - though I gather that the film adaptation of that work has been and probably will be problematic, considering Moore's extremely complex narrative, despite the fact that it has frequently been described as "cinematic") , for example, Margaret Thatcher's media handlers - or should I say, 'advisors' or 'consultants'? - pointed out to her that in television interviews, where editing reduced statements to complete sentences and that therefore if one continued to speak over the interviewer, then their - even legitimate - queries would be cut or ignored in the minds of the audience at least (and it is of course to them that one is speaking); this is, of course (forgive me for the repetition of that phrase, but I must assert that it is suitable) enhanced by sudden and random digressions within the original monologue (and at all times use English spelling, as the American 'monolog' is far too abbreviated) allow one to use at any convenient time the devastating criticism on one's opponent in the gladatorial contest of rhetoric, "Ah, of course you have addressed issue X, but you have also completely - and I must say, perhaps not deliberately, but certainly significantly and tellingly (redundancy being another useful and efficacious method of padding out an otherwise far simpler and more succinct statement), failled to address the other elements of my argument, which are, I must say, vis a vis the central issue under discussion here, are extremely pertinent to the conceptual aprehension of the fundamental issues at stake here at this moment in time... and, excuse me, but what is it that we were talking about?
-
Alan Sokal
Ohhh yes, that definitely - so to speak, for example, I might say [aaargh, I can't stop, please help me!] um... yeah, whatever!
-
Malcolm McDowell was magnificent in his portrayal as Pip in "A Clockwork Orange" My Wife was, and still is on Tuesdays, a great fan of dickins but unfortunately due to the pressure of work we are left with little time to indulge as much as we would like.
McDowell's later work after emigrating to Canadia belies the subtlety of his performance as Cornelius in The Planet of The Apes although his expertise in Heavy Construction and Mining Equipment leaves none but the most bewildered to occasion the thought that a career change of this magnitude could, without a doubt, have led to a less than successful outcome. -
My flabber is ghasted.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.