>> ^messenger:

There's also the issue of the other driver, who's got the shelter value and escape potential of his car, but instead of driving off, decides to take his kid outside, walk away, and abandon the car to a fireball. wtf?
child > car



and he gets to show his kid a cool 'splosion!

>> ^Auger8:

Wow just wow, greed wins again, seriously did he really have to make sure he could fit every last drop of gas in his tank. This is why topping off isn't a good idea. Those pumps stop at a certain point for a reason.
LOL and really what did he think would happen?


I think greed is the wrong term. It's not like squeezing those extra drops are free, you still pay for it. The reason topping off a gas tank is a bad idea is because gasoline expands and contracts with temperature. If you could fill your your tank up completely on a cold night and let it sit, when the temp warms up in the day the gas would expand and spill out. To prevent this, gas tanks have an expansion area in the top. When you remove the gas cap, there should be a little spring loaded thing that closes a valve to this bubble preventing you from completely filling the tank. When you put the gas cap back on, it presses the valve and re-opens the vent letting the gas expand into the bubble if needed. Some cars even have a sensor on that valve that will trigger a check engine light if you don't fully tighten your gas cap.

My car runs on diesel, but to save money on installing a different fuel tank for the diesel version it still has the same tank as the gasoline version (except it has a wider opening to fit diesel nozzles). Diesel doesn't expand like gasoline, so you can safely fill a diesel tank up to the rim. There's a little trick you can do on my car to remove the spring that leaves the vent open and fit an extra 2 gallons in the tank. People like riding with me on trips because I don't have to stop and fill up so often. Most of the places I regularly have to go I can make the round trip without a fuel stop.

>> ^visionep:

Probably insurance fraud, the guy was looking around all shifty like and there was absolutely no reason to put a match down there.


QFT.

>> ^kceaton1:

Actually are we sure the attendant was a fuck up? If this is a major fire, that thing may be designed to do exactly what we just saw, cause a huge explosion of CO2 around the gas stations to put out any fires immediately.


He opened up the valve and either didn't have a good enough grip on, -or wasn't even holding onto- the hose and it started whipping around.

Either that or Firebug guy was whining and the attendant got rid of him like a boss.

Your video, Driver Uses A MATCH To Look Into His Gas Tank., has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I was gonna say something like "what's the mileage on that puppy?" to try and be funny, but then I realized, it has no mileage. The whole gas tank get used just to start it up. It never goes anywhere.

>> ^Psychologic:

>> ^coolhund:
>> ^Psychologic:
>> ^coolhund:
>> ^sillma:
>> ^marinara:
>> ^TheGenk:
God, I hate motion blur...

man i thought it was just me who hated motion blur so much


Motion blur isn't all bad, but when it's applied at such amounts as this it's retarded as hell. Just a tiny TINY fraction of motion blur makes everything slightly more real.

That tiny bit of motion blur (actually I feel like its A LOT as well), you have anyway if youre using a LCD screen. So I really dont know why they add it in games on top of it too.

LCDs have a fade out effect, but it only affects pixels that change.
Think of a small object traveling very quickly across the sceen. Only the pixels in each frame will have the fade out, but "good" motion blur will actually make the animation look smoother.
Of course motion blur is like 3D... developers try to make it obvious and end up using way too much of the effect.

Nope, its exactly that. Motion blur. Things around you get blurry when you look around. Thats also why people cant tell that well anymore if its 60 fps now or 100. It makes the motion look smoother, but also makes things blurry. Try an old CRT again, the picture is crystal clear when you move around. On an LCD its blurry as hell.
So using motion blur on an LCD is like putting a gas tank into a gas tank.

It can be similar, but if something is moving fast enough that its individual frames aren't touching and the background is stationary then an LCD does nothing to connect those frames. Motion blur does (depending on the particular implementation).


An LCD always has motion blur when something is moving. If it slow, you just dont see it that well. Actually LCD motion blur is more realistic, since it isnt so overdone as the artifically implemented stuff.

>> ^coolhund:

>> ^Psychologic:
>> ^coolhund:
>> ^sillma:
>> ^marinara:
>> ^TheGenk:
God, I hate motion blur...

man i thought it was just me who hated motion blur so much


Motion blur isn't all bad, but when it's applied at such amounts as this it's retarded as hell. Just a tiny TINY fraction of motion blur makes everything slightly more real.

That tiny bit of motion blur (actually I feel like its A LOT as well), you have anyway if youre using a LCD screen. So I really dont know why they add it in games on top of it too.

LCDs have a fade out effect, but it only affects pixels that change.
Think of a small object traveling very quickly across the sceen. Only the pixels in each frame will have the fade out, but "good" motion blur will actually make the animation look smoother.
Of course motion blur is like 3D... developers try to make it obvious and end up using way too much of the effect.

Nope, its exactly that. Motion blur. Things around you get blurry when you look around. Thats also why people cant tell that well anymore if its 60 fps now or 100. It makes the motion look smoother, but also makes things blurry. Try an old CRT again, the picture is crystal clear when you move around. On an LCD its blurry as hell.
So using motion blur on an LCD is like putting a gas tank into a gas tank.


It can be similar, but if something is moving fast enough that its individual frames aren't touching and the background is stationary then an LCD does nothing to connect those frames. Motion blur does (depending on the particular implementation).

>> ^Psychologic:

>> ^coolhund:
>> ^sillma:
>> ^marinara:
>> ^TheGenk:
God, I hate motion blur...

man i thought it was just me who hated motion blur so much


Motion blur isn't all bad, but when it's applied at such amounts as this it's retarded as hell. Just a tiny TINY fraction of motion blur makes everything slightly more real.

That tiny bit of motion blur (actually I feel like its A LOT as well), you have anyway if youre using a LCD screen. So I really dont know why they add it in games on top of it too.

LCDs have a fade out effect, but it only affects pixels that change.
Think of a small object traveling very quickly across the sceen. Only the pixels in each frame will have the fade out, but "good" motion blur will actually make the animation look smoother.
Of course motion blur is like 3D... developers try to make it obvious and end up using way too much of the effect.


Nope, its exactly that. Motion blur. Things around you get blurry when you look around. Thats also why people cant tell that well anymore if its 60 fps now or 100. It makes the motion look smoother, but also makes things blurry. Try an old CRT again, the picture is crystal clear when you move around. On an LCD its blurry as hell.
So using motion blur on an LCD is like putting a gas tank into a gas tank.

I'm in and out of the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission building in Casper about a few times every month, and all I see are businessman from the petroleum industry (including Encana fucks) bitching about not getting enough permits to drill. And I don't care how much the state increases the number of permits, it's fucking never enough. They view them as a goddamn birthright. Of course these guys drive there in their Hummers, so they probably each need a well just to fill their gas tanks. I even heard one of those assholes complaining that Nixon would never have signed the Clean Water Act if he knew all the regulations it was going to create. Makes you want to scream.

*quality

Common misconception is that when a flamethower is shot and punctured that it will explode. It doesn't explode, but it can cause a large fireball. Which often looks like an explosion....

Read this Discovery forum post on the Myth of exploding flamethowers.

http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9741919888/m/2291905779

The quoted person below can explain what I mean far better than I can.

Not to split hairs - oh heck, yes, let's do that.

The word explosion is what's wrong. Used here it's a pardonable exaggeration, but an inaccurate statement nonetheless.

I'm going to use a US WWII M2 series flamethrower for discussion purposes. In it's original form, it used hydrogen for its compressed gas element. Hydrogen can explode when exposed to air and flame. However, they quickly switched to nitrogen, which is generally inert. If a bullet hit the nitrogen tank, no explosion.

As for the fuel, it's a thickened gas, just like napalm. It doesn't explode in its liquid state, and it doesn't vaporize to any degree worth mentioing here, so no explosion there, either. It burns. Period.

The pressurized nitrogen tank provided the 'push' for the fuel to be projected. If the pressure valve was turned off, and the thickened fuel tank was hit by a bullet, no fire or explosion, for the same reason a gas tank doesn't burn when shot. It needs to be exposed to air before burning, and there is none inside the tank. With an unpressurized tank, you'll get a slow leak (it IS thickened fuel, remember) which may eventually find an ignition source. The result: a fire, not an explosion.

If a fuel tank is hit when the pressure valve is on, still no explosion for the very same reasons. However . . . the thickened fuel is under pressure and will spray all over and is VERY likely to find an ignition source very quickly in combat. You still don't get an explosion, but you do get a big, spectacularly horrible fireball.

For purposes of conveying the horror involved, it may be understandable to misuse the term explosion. But for the purpose here of understanding the mechanics, explosion is not the correct word.
-binthere from discovery forums.

Where DOES the gas tank go?

Cool.

But where'd they put the gas tank??

blankfist, ever thoughtful blankfist. We often butt heads, but you always mount an intelligent argument. I appreciate this. This is why I will allow you to bear my sift butt babies when you come of age.

I think most consumers understand that their money goes towards evil. I myself, socially conscious politico that I am, buy clothes made of Indonesian children, play Super Mario Galaxy (don't have the sequel yet, champ) on Chinese suicide victims and put dead Iraqis in my gas tank. I do my small meaningless part for wallet democracy by boycotting Exxon/Mobil, Wal*Mart and McDonalds, but those corporations thrive despite of my best efforts. Aside from that, I am completely complicit in oppression, as are we all. It's easy to ignore the suffering when it's so far away and there are so many everyday low prices. Any change in this arena certainly won't come from consumers, because we all play a part in this circle of misery. The system needs to be busted in two.

(note for campiondelculo: Yes, of course we could all move to a forest, use Ubunto and live off the grid, but get serious dude, that is an absurd and semi-retarted expectation for a world population of billions.)

Foxcomm had little or no regulation and started out as a small business. This empirical evidence would seem to completely contradict your hypothesis. How might a true free market have affected Foxcomm or prevented its ills?

I do think the majority of people want to do the right thing, that's why I support democracy. Without democracy, there is no civic means of expressing the public will, which means the guy with the most money calls the shots. Not really all that different than what we have already, just with less voting and more slavery.

Not sure how the jail thing fits into the larger context, but solidarity with you on that brother. Set the prostitutes and weed users free.

You sound a little red when you talk about majorities, communalism, tibal desires and coexisting. Are you becoming a Marxist? Either way, I've got wood. Baby making time?

My best guess is that the anti-fire system (Halon was actually banned in 1994, but I guess this could be an older video) was set off somehow. The title indicates it is the woman (van owner?) who set it off, but the man (sedan owner) also just removed the nozzle from his car when it went off, so ruling a spark on his end out is not an option either. So either the van owner pushed the big emergency fire button, the sedan's gas tank sparked, or there was a general malfunction somewhere.

Let me sum that up: Haha, their cars got covered in crap.