Electric car drives for 100 hours non-stop. MAGAs panties getting moist.

[PostmodernProphet]

PostmodernIdiot had no clue....how incredibly stupid I am

liar.....there were many clues...

 

[PostmodernProphet]

That would be more difficult. .

you really are that stupid aren't you......

 

[Joe Capitalist]

They are so confident in their lies, I pity them.

Joe brings up an interesting point, why does the alt right need lies to support their arguments? If their arguments were sound, they could support them with real facts.

FoxNews has taught them that lying can be a good strategy.

 

[Into the Night]

No i want DATA.

Of what?

How did they know for FACT, these things would be adopted and not flop like other inventions and attempts in mass transit.

They didn't.

You are arguing that they were not just using their best guess that 'if they built it people would use it' so give me the hard data to prove it?

Data on what?

Same for a new bridge. PROVE to me that any new bridge being proposed will be used? Do not speculate, with your best guess, i want PROOF and DATA.

A speculation is not a proof. There is no proof. What data?

 

[Into the Night]

No you are just full of shit and flailing.

He is correct. Argument of the Stone fallacy.

The FACT is before their were any railways, cars, etc there was ONLY 'wishful thinking'.

No. Just playing around.

In EVERY SINGLE ONE of these advancements, since our primary mode of transportation went from being our feet, it was ONLY wishful thinking that drove them believe that if they built 'whatever', people would come and people would use it (wishful thinking).

No. There is no 'end goal' of advancements.

Do you agree with that, and if not again what data would they have when these things were all just in blue print stage that they would be adopted and work?

No data. None needed.

 

[Into the Night]

Once they are metered,

How are you going to meter it???

they will be a huge income generator.

What income??

In other words, the best investment you can possibly make.

An expensive road with no known income?? Bad investment.

Anyone with a brain will beg to pay for them.

A brain doesn't need them. It gets all it needs from the food you eat and the oxygen you breath.

The problem here is your lack of imagination.

You haven't stated a case yet.

It is hard not to make a profitable business out of this...

What income? Where is it coming from? Who's going to pay for it?

While allowing truck and car drivers to get the cheapest energy.

An electrified road isn't a source of energy.

 

[Into the Night]

It would be very possible for an EV, getting electricity from an outside source, to drive for a thousand hours. 100 hours would be laughably easy.

Who's going to pay for it?

 

[Into the Night]

FINALLY, SOMEONE WHO GETS IT!!!

Self driving cars have actually been doing well on highways.

There aren't any on the interstate highway system.

It is the more local roads that are a problem.

It is local roads that they are allowed at all.

So you will be able to drive anywhere in America, take a nap while your car is driving you and charging, and then get off on local roads to drive the last few miles with a fully powered vehicle.

Who's going to pay for it?

BUT IT GETS BETTER!!!

Imagine trucks that deliver on their own to the closest highway offramp, where a driver drives them the last few miles to where the cargo is delivered. This would cut delivery costs by a huge amount. It would eliminate the problems of drivers shortages. It would allow the trucks to be fueled with whatever the cheapest fuel is.

Who's going to pay for it?

 

[Into the Night]

It is possible to drive forever on a circular track, so driving 100 hours should not be a problem. That is why they made the test track circular. That allowed them to build a short track, and drive forever on it.

The circular track was apparently built. If you have some evidence it was not built, then share that with us, but your denials right now are sounding desperate, especially because you denied that you can drive for as long as you want on a circle without hitting the end.

You still don't get it. A mile or so of circular track is far different than the tens of thousands of miles of interstate. Who's going to pay for it?

 

[Into the Night]

The original internet required switches and routers, which had to be invented just for it.

The internet is a protocol. It has no hardware.

That was a huge investment.

No hardware means no investment in hardware.

Then as it grew, the requirements grew exponentially.

The protocol in most common use is version 4. Some installations using version 6 are in use.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Gardner got one right. The original internet was DARPANet, and was a defense program.

Wrong. The first IP packets were sent between Stanford U, and the University College of London in 1977. DARPA was not established until 1982.
https://scos.training/history-of-tcp-ip/

It was funded by the government for decades before becoming useful.

Wrong again. The first IP packet was send in 1977 and the first military network was established in 1982, just five years later.

We need more moon shot government programs, not less.

The internet is a protocol, not a moon or planet, and not a rocket. You are now advocating communism.

We need government funding huge numbers of research projects that will mostly fail. The reason is the few wild successes.

Communism doesn't work. The technology was already demonstrated on a closed track. Who's going to pay for putting it into the tens of thousands of miles of interstate and providing power to it?

Those were not networks in the modern sense.

IP is a network in the modern sense.

Their failure was they just connected two points with a phone line.

IP is a protocol, not any hardware. Phones have dials on them, allowing them to contact any other phone on the network. Matrix switching, and later ESS switching is commonplace on phone networks.

There was no switching, or routing.

Matrix switching is switching AND routing.

There were no packets at all.

The first IP packet was sent in 1987. The first packet of any kind was sent in 1977.

If the line between the two points went out, there was no communication.

Phone networks are networks. That means there are several paths between nodes on that network. If one path went out, another would take it's place.

The packet switching, as used in the internet, solved all that and created a real network.

There is no 'packet switching' on phone networks. Just switching and routing.

Each packet picked its own path,

Packets do not pick paths.

so if one line went out, it was quickly replaced.

Packets, once lost, are not replaced. Indeed, the ICMP destroys packets that have been hopping from node to node for too long.

Also any two nodes could communicate with each other.

Long before the internet. It's called the phone network.

Better yet, all nodes could communicate with all notes at the same time.

I assume you mean 'nodes' instead of 'notes'. You are describing the phone network, not internet.

Actually, it's usually the Left that is anti-technological progress. Leftists rarely are scientists and engineers in fields where practical applications are the primary thing.

Well, that is not true. It could not be further from the truth.

It is quite true. Leftists typically deny and discard science and engineering as well as math, logic, and the law. I see little practical coming from anyone on the left.

Reality time: Biden is pushing along nuclear development.

No, he is not.

trump would talk about pushing it along, but would quickly lose interest.

No, he didn't either. Illiteracy: Proper names are capitalized. The beginning of sentences are capitalized.

The solution is to improve the infrastructure. The infrastructure will only improve with more demand. All of this is common sense.

No demand. Who's going to pay for it?

You would have argued against the car, because there were few paved roads, and no gas stations.

Cars don't need paved roads or gas stations.

 

[Into the Night]

Reagan removed the internet from the budget proposal repeatedly. He thought it was a waste of money, and I guess to someone born in 1911, it would seem like a waste of money.

It was a waste of money. There are better protocols out there. But, it's here, and people use it, so we're stuck with it.

The internet did not generate any income for anyone until the wide acceptance of the HTTP protocol and commercial sites started appearing, around 1995, long after Reagan.
It was quite a bit later that federal government agencies finally figured out how to build functional websites.

Did you know the internet is a lot more than just the Web?

 

[Into the Night]

PostmodernIdiot had no clue that the circular track is what has been used to prove things out in automotive innovations since the inception of the automobile. I had to explain that to him as he thought what was learned on a circular track would not apply to a straight stretch of road.

He is one of the dumber posters on this site, which is saying something.

this was a proof of concept test. What that does not mean is that it will be applied exactly to real world situations or applied at all. They are simply testing the upper limits of results in controlled situations so they can then see how and where they can use this technology in a practical way to benefit society.

A mile or two of circular track is nothing like tens of thousands of miles of interstate freeway.

Who's going to pay for it? It's not practical until you can find a way to pay for it that is practical.

 

[Into the Night]

T.A Gardner is a dishonest hack who quickly leaves a thread once his stupidity is highlighted.

What stupidity? The only stupidity is YOU, since you are making an assumption of victory fallacy.

To argue that major advancements like the internet for its earliest iterations to the consumer friendly version we all enjoy now, from evolution to copper wires, to fibre, was not really a big deal built on what he decries as 'wish casting', is just ignorance on his part.

The internet is not copper, fiber, or any other hardware. The internet is a protocol.

No one knows prior to the first iterations, if it will actually work as blueprinted and if people will use and adopt it after.

Including the internet.

What he decries as 'wish casting' as a reason to not proceed, would have prevented every major project ever developed that was not proven first.

Invention is not a 'project'.

You still have not answered my question. Who's going to pay for it?

In his world you could not even build a new bridge span connecting two prior unconnected points, as that is based on a belief people will use and adopt it.

Straw man fallacy. Who's going to pay for electrifying tens of thousands of miles of roads in the manner this test track was built?

It is not proven, no matter how much you believe or wish they would use it, until it is built.,

Who's going to pay for it?

BUt that is the republiclown way. They reflexively try to shut down all forms of advancement thinking living in the past (MAGA) is preferable.

Not the meaning of MAGA. Who's going to pay for it?

There simply is no denying that is primarily a function within Republiclown circles to an extreme extent, with no real comparable opposition on the left.

You are describing Democrats. Who's going to pay for it?

 

[Into the Night]

Democrats are boycotting Target and trying to outlaw the oil, coal, and natural gas industries.

 

[Into the Night]

Bullshit. The phone system and automatic switching and routers existed as early as the 1930's. The first system one might characterize as an "Internet" was the US military's SAGE and Missile Master systems. These two were integrated nationwide using dedicated phone lines, as well as microwave and radio transmission systems. Both started life in the mid 1950's.




Not if it's a digital, electronic clock... DARPANET was just one more iteration of something that already actually existed. Both SAGE (Semi-Automatic Ground Environment) and Missile Master predate it, and were far more extensive systems.



SAGE and Missile Master were. They were real-time interactive systems that allowed the USAF and Army to coordinate the air defense of the US from Alaska to Florida.



Actually it is true. The Left is very anti-technology. They selectively pick a few that they like and ignore the rest even to the extent of outlawing and stigmatizing them.



Why does Biden continue to hold back the nuclear energy industry?
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-...nue-to-hold-back-the-nuclear-energy-industry/

Instead, Biden has offered a tiny sop to the nuclear power industry in the form of $6 billion in credit. That is miniscule compared to $3 billion for rooftop solar alone, then hundreds of millions to various solar manufacturers, etc.



No, the way forward is to do what works. Battery cars are a dead end. Fuel cells and using hydrogen or anhydrous ammonia--as two examples--makes far more sense. But these aren't being pushed.

Remember that hydrogen and ammonia must both be manufactured. That is going to require more electricity than simply charging a battery car in the first place, which you already correct state is impractical.

 

[Into the Night]

The phone system switches phone calls, not packets. I am not going to waste my time explaining the difference to you.

The phone network is the largest and most extensive network in existence.

No, the internet was invented as a correction to the many flaws of SAGE.

The internet protocol and it's design had nothing to do with SAGE.

 

[Into the Night]

Any amazing advancement worth trying is going to fail most of the time. That is why we try as many amazing advancements as possible. It is not a reason to try none.

Okay. The technology has already been demonstrated on a specially constructed closed track (maybe a mile or so of electrified roadway). Who's going to pay to install it on tens of thousands of miles of interstate and to provide power for it?

 

[Into the Night]

Packets refers to how the data is transmitted, not the means of transmission. It's obvious you know nothing about these systems.



Wrong. The Internet is a logical progression of systems like SAGE and Missile Master. Again, it's obvious you know nothing about either and how they interconnected and worked.

The internet has nothing to do with SAGE or Missile Master. Otherwise correct.

 

[Into the Night]

I worked for Verizon for over 20 years.
Walt, you are correct. TA Garbler is spewing bullshit again, which he tends to do when he knows he's losing a argument.

Then you have learning nothing about cell phone packet switching or even how cell phones work. What did you do there? Sweep floors and empty garbage?

 

[Into the Night]

No, packets refer to how the data is being transmitted, in smaller sized packets, not the data being transmitted.

So you just agreed with T.A. Gardner, but you said 'No.' Which is it, dude?

A phone switch connects two locations by a constant, single line.

No. ESS systems today use packets. All cell phones use packets. Trunk lines are typically all class E now.

A packet switching network is constantly figuring out how to get every individual packet from point A to point B.

Just like the phone system today.

There is no attempt to make them all go the same way,

Just like the phone system.

and a single line will usually have packets from many different sources and destination going over it.

Just like the phone system.

Packet switching was a huge step forward, and not a "logical progression" as you claim.

It was a logical progression. In the early days of internet, for example, there was no packet switching. Routing itself was concerned solely with route files that would be copied to each node. It wasn't long before the route files became too large to manage in this way. This is when DNS and the bindery was created.

Packet switching didn't come into common use until Ethernet version 3.

SAGE was a logical progression from telephones, in that it basically placed a phone call between two points.

Ever hear of a party line?