Mad Max meets Fallout meets Borderlands? Hell yeah! *promote

If I ever direct a Mad Max-esque post-apocalyptic movie, I'm totally stealing that idea.

But who will beat that woman to a pulp and sell her as a sexslave to a disgusting old pervert?
Someone who likes to trade goods freely without government intervention. A true libertarian. Like the great Humungus.
But wait, she's got a shotgun. It'll make her untouchable in that Mad Max Utopia of hers.

Videos like this still leave me failing to understand the difference between anarchism and libertarianism. It just sounds like anarchism that leads to utopia instead of a Mad Max world because, err, free market.

No, your right. The destructive uses of a gun can be overlooked when we consider their constructive use as, err, a high powered holepunch? Indeed was it not a happy accident when we discovered that this household tool was also extremely potent as a weapon!

Ok Mr S. Emantics, we give objects purpose through our use of them, but we also design objects for specific purposes. Occasionally it turns out the what we intend something to be used for actually works better as something else. This is not the case with firearms. They are designed to kill, killing is what they are good at. Knives can also kill, but they aren't quite as good as a gun, and i don't see too many people dicing veg on a cutting board with a mac10. So yes, we do accept certain premature deaths more readily than others because we all accept that knives and cars have significant uses beyond killing people. We legislate with this in mind, we don't let people carry long knives in the street, we don't allow people to turn their cars into spiked mad max death buggies, we don't let people pervert the purpose of these tools. So where are the ancillary benefits of firearms. What use is accelerating a projectile that may or may not be designed to penetrate flesh actually give us, because a lot of people have a hard time seeing it.

You know, after 9/11 nobody was talkin about banning planes. There is a reason for that.

>> ^Hive13:


Well done, Officer M. Nork.


I think Officer Nork was just as ready to shoot these assholes and have a calm lunch after.


BTW letting people walk around with 30 shot machine guns (even if they are reduced to semi-auto) is some Mad Max shit. How many terrified people clutching sweaty pistols in their houses that night? Or did the cops go around explaining to all the frightened people that called them that actually what they saw on the street today was normal?

"Dearest F-----, I want to thank you for making me realise something. It requires quite an ego-free state of mind not be drawn into battle with you, since you love to manipulate others into the same state of rage that I believe you must be frequently in. This helps me a lot.

I haven't seen the Mad Max film you referenced to since I was about 17. I've forgotten the characters, so you'll have to spell out exactly with words, how you're trying to manipulate my ego right now. Don't hold back, love, I can take it." - A very, very wise woman.

This is really just a silly Hyundai Elantra commercial where they also talk to one of the Walking Dead creators about his work. There are roughly 3 different versions of the car depicted, and none of them are feasible.



Of course no one would pick a compact coupe as the foundation for an armored car if they had any kind of choice in the matter (and if they don't, there's no reason to talk about what a great choice their only option is). There are a couple key areas in which this car really shows the limitations of the basic platform (a compact coupe): Height, Carry Capacity.

Basics:
An Elantra weighs about 2,800lbs unmodified (and roughly 3,500 - 4,000 as imagined), has about 150HP (not impressive numbers from a 1.8L engine), and has a sunroof roughly 4'8" feet off the ground.

Height:
The idea of a turret on top of the car for offense is great, except for the part where he's talking about a car with a height of less than 5 feet. The average person is about 5'6" with an arm's reach of at least an extra foot. So, the person in the protected turret is still likely in range (the hypotenuse of an arm reaching to this height would be slightly longer than the ~4'8" car height plus the roughly foot and a half of turret). Have you ever stood out of a compact coupe's sunroof while the car was in motion? There's not a lot of room in that car period, there's certainly no room for a person to stand in the center of it while it's in motion in a high stress situation.

Carry Capacity:
The Elantra has a roughly 900lbs carry capacity (this weight includes driver and passengers, plus armor and such). I'm going to assume the weight of the cow catcher is about equal to an average small truck snow plow (250lbs), and that it's for hitting zombies not clearing the road of vehicles, and I'm going to place a fair shot in the dark of roughly 172.5lbs for the rest of the armor (assuming 7 gauge sheet metal is ideal, and assuming 23 square feet will cover enough glass). So far we've got 477.5lbs of carry capacity for driver, gunner, passengers, and gear. Each person likely weighs roughly 200lbs which means the car has enough capacity to deal with a driver, a single gunner, and two moderately well stocked bags of supplies. Any more than this and the car will start to run into issues, a lot more than this (say, loading it up with passengers and gear) and you risk significant damage to the car's ability to continue driving. All of this assumes they don't want to beef up the rear of the car to allow the vehicle to be able to "safely" ram other obstructions in the road (in a demolition derby drivers drive, and crash into each other, backwards to protect all of the sensitive components in the engine bay).

Other:
The roman chariot style blades on the wheels of a car was tried in an episode of the tv show Top Gear and it threw off the wheel balance to the point of making the car entirely undrivable for any more than a mile or two. Also, just about the last thing you want to do when dealing with zombies is damage their legs because it's much easier to see a zombie walking than a zombie crawling (our soldiers crawl when they want to be harder to see in modern combat for a reason). The general purpose of a compact car is to be accessible (read: inexpensive), and often they utilize a small fuel efficient engine. Increasing the weight of this car by about 40% is not doing any favors to the already under powered car, and the fuel economy is going to suffer. Realistically, speed and acceleration are meaningless (of course the car will exceed the 3 mile per hour average human walking speed).

Improvements:
*Start with a different type of vehicle. Perhaps something that was designed to be large.
*Ignore the mad max spikes.


research tools:
http://www.hyundaiusa.com/elantra/specifications.aspx
http://www.hyundai-forums.com/197-i30-elantra-touring-forum/140546-load-capacity-2012-touring.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humvee
http://www.fisherplows.com/fe/showroom/homesteader
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gauge-sheet-d_915.html
http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/scales/sheetmetal.html

It's kinda got a Mad Max Road Warrior feel to it, I like it.

The Last Crusade - best Movie + Computer Game combo ever!

Anyhow:
What would have made this clip really epic is if he had bad things to say about Uncharted too, and it would all be cut in context of the "Crystal Skull" thingy that some (fools) claim to be an Indy movie.

There are Three movies made featuring Indiana Jones, and Two featuring Mad Max.

History has proven that the law is NOT sacrosanct, especially with regards to certain groups. You talk about slavery; well for decades after slavery it was against the law to kill black men, yet they were murdered often, with the killers not serving a day. In Florida, it is this history that people remember when they think of Martin.

It's already Mad Max time with people like Zimmerman walking around, and those two characters in Tulsa that killed several random black men just because they were black. The question is, can the so called justice system in our country get things back to law and order.>> ^cosmovitelli:

>> ^longde:
I don't think he will walk due to that law unless you have a cowboy of a judge. It's simply the easy path to send the case to a jury. And Zimmy has told so many lies to the police and to the public, he will be he will look very bad in front of a jury.>> ^cosmovitelli:
He's going to walk. It's the law in Florida that if you're frightened you can kill someone. He only has to say he was, and they can't touch him for it.


Yeah but this is my point.. Even a jury trial can't just decide to punish someone, the judge has to rule that they have broken the law first. You might not like the guy in the dock and have numerous reasons for wanting to lock him up but THE LAW IS SACROSANCT. You have to demonstrate that he broke it. During slavery, it was in some places and at some times not against the law to kill a black person. Therefore, no matter how outraged the jury, they COULDN'T TOUCH HIM.
So this is the problem - if they go against the law to send him to jail they've destroyed the sanctity of the law that 300 years of liberal intellectuals have created and protected, sometimes with their lives.
If they let him go it's Mad Max time and there'll be a hundred more of these in the next few years.
This is what happens when men of low character get to write laws. It's happened many times before. And it's never led to anything that lasted long afterwards.
Here's hoping they can figure it out.

>> ^longde:

I don't think he will walk due to that law unless you have a cowboy of a judge. It's simply the easy path to send the case to a jury. And Zimmy has told so many lies to the police and to the public, he will be he will look very bad in front of a jury.>> ^cosmovitelli:
He's going to walk. It's the law in Florida that if you're frightened you can kill someone. He only has to say he was, and they can't touch him for it.



Yeah but this is my point.. Even a jury trial can't just decide to punish someone, the judge has to rule that they have broken the law first. You might not like the guy in the dock and have numerous reasons for wanting to lock him up but THE LAW IS SACROSANCT. You have to demonstrate that he broke it. During slavery, it was in some places and at some times not against the law to kill a black person. Therefore, no matter how outraged the jury, they COULDN'T TOUCH HIM.

So this is the problem - if they go against the law to send him to jail they've destroyed the sanctity of the law that 300 years of liberal intellectuals have created and protected, sometimes with their lives.
If they let him go it's Mad Max time and there'll be a hundred more of these in the next few years.
This is what happens when men of low character get to write laws. It's happened many times before. And it's never led to anything that lasted long afterwards.

Here's hoping they can figure it out.

He's right - But as he says, first you need the sense to get out of town, safely, and get to a safe haven. Most people will linger close to where they live, where all their stuff is, until conditions get to the point where they are forced to move. And by then, they wouldn't have the resources to move, such as a vehicle with fuel or food to make the trip. Not to mention, weapons to defend yourself as you pass others on the road that want what little you have.

Mad Max has proven this to be true!

@chilaxe

Wtf are you talking about man.

How is "Public transit's very developed here. It looks like this." followed by a picture of Mad Max's post-apocalyptic wasteland in any way a "reasonable hypothesis" or intellectual argument for the negative consequences of the talking points blanket term: "socialism"?

Secondly, if you're allowed to show extreme prejudice toward your assumed stereotypes of all blacks and hispanics.. why can't I?

By your very own logic, it would be inconceivable to assume you're a successful non-white living in the lap of luxury and high society in the middle of Silicon Valley.

Seeing as you constantly stereotype all non-white [excluding asians] as lazy moochers feeding off the tit of NObama's Socialist Welfare State.

Fer shit sake, you even used the term "societal decay". Which I've already revealed as another talking point for bigots who subscribe to the ideology of forums like Parapundit.com i.e. YOU.

Not that it would matter if you're part of a non-white ethnic group. Every comment you make on the sift about society and races is utterly hateful and presumptuous about scenarios [being a low income single black mother living in Oakland] you have NO CLUE about.

At the very least you're hypocritical and ignorant by choice.

Either way, you're a troll.

You're right - this is all mostly speculation.

I believe that if the GM and Chrysler had failed, consumer confidence would have collapsed and Americans would have deferred their new vehicle purchases or bought used cars. As it was, auto sales were down 18% in 2008.

The failure of GM and Chrysler would have removed something like 33% of U.S. vehicle production, and 4% of all U.S. manufacturing. Everyone else would have maximized their production to make up for the loss, but it would have taken years to replace that amount of production.

Meanwhile, the 1 in 30 Americans residing in the State of Michigan start living in Mad Max times.

I think it is one of the functions of government to provide a buffer between the people and the wild throes of relentless progress inherent in free-market capitalism. The government bans things like slavery and child labor, not because it makes financial sense, but because it is the right thing to do. I think there is a similar justification for the automotive bailout. The bailout prevented human suffering on a massive scale. That is why we should care about saving those jobs.

IMHO

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^NetRunner:
People also forget that it wasn't just people who work for GM and Chrysler whose jobs were saved. There's a whole supply chain to think about.
Do you believe that the demand for cars would have decreased if the big 3 went under? If so, please explain how and why....
... So the question I pose (and I know we can only speculate on the answer) is what effect have the bailouts had on Toyota, Honda, etc? Or do we not care because they don't employ as many Americans as the domestics?