United We Stand - uwsboard.com

Virginia Tech fans discussing politics, religion, and football
It is currently Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:15 pm

Time zone: America/New_York [ DST ]


UWS DWF UWS Lunch UWS Sports UWS Help TSL Football TSL Lounge TSL MBB Acronyms Top 25 Topics


Forum rules


Please be civil.



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 78 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2018 2:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:57 pm
Posts: 9215
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
BigDave wrote:
That can't possibly be a net win for the climate, can it? The trucks they are hauling it in produce pollution. They probably produce greenhouse gasses when they make the stuff. And there's the potential of runoff on the rare occasion it rains. This just doesn't seem like a net win.


It's not actually paint. It's a sealant. Asphalt has to be sealed on a regular basis, so they are using this product instead of standard asphalt sealant. The CoolSeal they are using is water based, while most sealants are polymer based, so the runoff effect is more environmentally friendly. No net impact from the trucks since they have to haul whatever sealant they're using anyway. Same with the production, no net impact.
And by using reflective surfaces, it reduces ground temps, which means less heat coming from the ground at night, which lowers A/C bills.
It's a trial to test the actual impacts, I don't see why anyone has an issue with testing out things like this.


Don't pretend this isn't an absurd waste.


I'm not pretending, or claiming anything. It's a trial. If it works, and they produce in larger quantities, price goes down.
It's supposed to increase the durability of the roads, and it is skid tested.

I'm definitely skeptical, but it's funny watching people get their panties in a wad over a trial. I know, California. It's a huge trigger for some folks.


Trial? Give me a break. How are they going to judge effectiveness at combating goreball whining? :lol:

That must be some good kool-aid.


Combating climate change isn't a goal. Reducing the localized temp increases from dark surfaces, is a goal. I'm guessing they'll probably use some sort of thermometer to measure the effectiveness.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2018 2:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:20 pm
Posts: 11248
Location: New York, NY
cwtcr hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
BigDave wrote:
That can't possibly be a net win for the climate, can it? The trucks they are hauling it in produce pollution. They probably produce greenhouse gasses when they make the stuff. And there's the potential of runoff on the rare occasion it rains. This just doesn't seem like a net win.


It's not actually paint. It's a sealant. Asphalt has to be sealed on a regular basis, so they are using this product instead of standard asphalt sealant. The CoolSeal they are using is water based, while most sealants are polymer based, so the runoff effect is more environmentally friendly. No net impact from the trucks since they have to haul whatever sealant they're using anyway. Same with the production, no net impact.
And by using reflective surfaces, it reduces ground temps, which means less heat coming from the ground at night, which lowers A/C bills.
It's a trial to test the actual impacts, I don't see why anyone has an issue with testing out things like this.


Don't pretend this isn't an absurd waste.


I'm not pretending, or claiming anything. It's a trial. If it works, and they produce in larger quantities, price goes down.
It's supposed to increase the durability of the roads, and it is skid tested.

I'm definitely skeptical, but it's funny watching people get their panties in a wad over a trial. I know, California. It's a huge trigger for some folks.


angry old men.


I know you have to actually pay taxes to be irritated when they are wasted, so it is good to know that you are a taker, not a giver. I have to prepare for your detailed response now.....


We can compare tax bills if you wish to make this personal, but I would expect that neither of our tax dollars are being used to fund this project.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

_________________
"Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible." - DT(2013)

"We're not going to own it. I'm not going to own it. I can tell you the Republicans are not going to own it." - DT(2017)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2018 3:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:10 pm
Posts: 32661
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Party: After 10
ip_law-hokie wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
[quote="BigDave"]That can't possibly be a net win for the climate, can it? The trucks they are hauling it in produce pollution. They probably produce greenhouse gasses when they make the stuff. And there's the potential of runoff on the rare occasion it rains. This just doesn't seem like a net win.


It's not actually paint. It's a sealant. Asphalt has to be sealed on a regular basis, so they are using this product instead of standard asphalt sealant. The CoolSeal they are using is water based, while most sealants are polymer based, so the runoff effect is more environmentally friendly. No net impact from the trucks since they have to haul whatever sealant they're using anyway. Same with the production, no net impact.
And by using reflective surfaces, it reduces ground temps, which means less heat coming from the ground at night, which lowers A/C bills.
It's a trial to test the actual impacts, I don't see why anyone has an issue with testing out things like this.


Don't pretend this isn't an absurd waste.


I'm not pretending, or claiming anything. It's a trial. If it works, and they produce in larger quantities, price goes down.
It's supposed to increase the durability of the roads, and it is skid tested.

I'm definitely skeptical, but it's funny watching people get their panties in a wad over a trial. I know, California. It's a huge trigger for some folks.


angry old men.


I know you have to actually pay taxes to be irritated when they are wasted, so it is good to know that you are a taker, not a giver. I have to prepare for your detailed response now.....


We can compare tax bills if you wish to make this personal, but I would expect that neither of our tax dollars are being used to fund this project.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]I'm shocked you guys picked white. You know Maxine Waters will cry that they're whitewashing the city, "literally painting that MFer white!". Surprised pink or some gay rainbow color wasn't picked.

_________________
You losers lost, take off the vagina suit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2018 4:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:58 pm
Posts: 20585
Party: Draintheswamp
HokieFanDC wrote:
Combating climate change isn't a goal. Reducing the localized temp increases from dark surfaces, is a goal. I'm guessing they'll probably use some sort of thermometer to measure the effectiveness.


That is weapons-grade, 6th grade science fair stupid. You think we need to spend all this money to see if dark stuff gets hotter in the sun? Maybe you should have just called Mr. Wizard instead of wasting $40k/mi. to paint roads white. :lol:

No seriously, you invalidate your entire argument as a farce with such a stupid rationalization for wasting tax dollars.

_________________
“At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child — miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats.”

― P.J. O'Rourke


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2018 4:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:57 pm
Posts: 9215
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
Combating climate change isn't a goal. Reducing the localized temp increases from dark surfaces, is a goal. I'm guessing they'll probably use some sort of thermometer to measure the effectiveness.


That is weapons-grade, 6th grade science fair stupid. You think we need to spend all this money to see if dark stuff gets hotter in the sun? Maybe you should have just called Mr. Wizard instead of wasting $40k/mi. to paint roads white. :lol:

No seriously, you invalidate your entire argument as a farce with such a stupid rationalization for wasting tax dollars.



Your question: "You think we need to spend all this money to see if dark stuff gets hotter in the sun?"

Answer: No, of course not. Nothing about any of this has anything to do with your silly question. Good job, Cap'n BS.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2018 5:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 9:25 am
Posts: 9729
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
Combating climate change isn't a goal. Reducing the localized temp increases from dark surfaces, is a goal. I'm guessing they'll probably use some sort of thermometer to measure the effectiveness.


That is weapons-grade, 6th grade science fair stupid. You think we need to spend all this money to see if dark stuff gets hotter in the sun? Maybe you should have just called Mr. Wizard instead of wasting $40k/mi. to paint roads white. :lol:

No seriously, you invalidate your entire argument as a farce with such a stupid rationalization for wasting tax dollars.



Your question: "You think we need to spend all this money to see if dark stuff gets hotter in the sun?"

Answer: No, of course not. Nothing about any of this has anything to do with your silly question. Good job, Cap'n BS.



Every idea is not good, most that gov. idiots come up with are super bad ideas.... this "trial" qualifies under the waste and stupid section. If they really are worried about goreball warming then figure out how to make cows, horses and pigs not fart


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2018 5:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:58 pm
Posts: 20585
Party: Draintheswamp
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
Combating climate change isn't a goal. Reducing the localized temp increases from dark surfaces, is a goal. I'm guessing they'll probably use some sort of thermometer to measure the effectiveness.


That is weapons-grade, 6th grade science fair stupid. You think we need to spend all this money to see if dark stuff gets hotter in the sun? Maybe you should have just called Mr. Wizard instead of wasting $40k/mi. to paint roads white. :lol:

No seriously, you invalidate your entire argument as a farce with such a stupid rationalization for wasting tax dollars.



Your question: "You think we need to spend all this money to see if dark stuff gets hotter in the sun?"

Answer: No, of course not. Nothing about any of this has anything to do with your silly question. Good job, Cap'n BS.


I'm sorry, I assumed you understood how heat radiates. We can have Mr. Wizard explain that next. :lol:

I'm dying here. When you were talking about trials I assumed you meant wear/durability and traffic safety, not a full-on global warming science fair project.

_________________
“At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child — miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats.”

― P.J. O'Rourke


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2018 5:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:57 pm
Posts: 9215
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
Combating climate change isn't a goal. Reducing the localized temp increases from dark surfaces, is a goal. I'm guessing they'll probably use some sort of thermometer to measure the effectiveness.


That is weapons-grade, 6th grade science fair stupid. You think we need to spend all this money to see if dark stuff gets hotter in the sun? Maybe you should have just called Mr. Wizard instead of wasting $40k/mi. to paint roads white. :lol:

No seriously, you invalidate your entire argument as a farce with such a stupid rationalization for wasting tax dollars.



Your question: "You think we need to spend all this money to see if dark stuff gets hotter in the sun?"

Answer: No, of course not. Nothing about any of this has anything to do with your silly question. Good job, Cap'n BS.


I'm sorry, I assumed you understood how heat radiates. We can have Mr. Wizard explain that next. :lol:

I'm dying here. When you were talking about trials I assumed you meant wear/durability and traffic safety, not a full-on global warming science fair project.


Maybe you should just read what I wrote, instead of making up your own BS.

"Reducing the localized temp increases from dark surfaces". It's a pretty simple concept. People have been working on reducing urban heat for a while now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2018 5:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:58 pm
Posts: 20585
Party: Draintheswamp
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
Combating climate change isn't a goal. Reducing the localized temp increases from dark surfaces, is a goal. I'm guessing they'll probably use some sort of thermometer to measure the effectiveness.


That is weapons-grade, 6th grade science fair stupid. You think we need to spend all this money to see if dark stuff gets hotter in the sun? Maybe you should have just called Mr. Wizard instead of wasting $40k/mi. to paint roads white. :lol:

No seriously, you invalidate your entire argument as a farce with such a stupid rationalization for wasting tax dollars.



Your question: "You think we need to spend all this money to see if dark stuff gets hotter in the sun?"

Answer: No, of course not. Nothing about any of this has anything to do with your silly question. Good job, Cap'n BS.


I'm sorry, I assumed you understood how heat radiates. We can have Mr. Wizard explain that next. :lol:

I'm dying here. When you were talking about trials I assumed you meant wear/durability and traffic safety, not a full-on global warming science fair project.


Maybe you should just read what I wrote, instead of making up your own BS.

"Reducing the localized temp increases from dark surfaces". It's a pretty simple concept. People have been working on reducing urban heat for a while now.


You keep saying the same thing over and over as if that makes it less silly.

_________________
“At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child — miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats.”

― P.J. O'Rourke


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2018 7:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:57 pm
Posts: 9215
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
Combating climate change isn't a goal. Reducing the localized temp increases from dark surfaces, is a goal. I'm guessing they'll probably use some sort of thermometer to measure the effectiveness.


That is weapons-grade, 6th grade science fair stupid. You think we need to spend all this money to see if dark stuff gets hotter in the sun? Maybe you should have just called Mr. Wizard instead of wasting $40k/mi. to paint roads white. :lol:

No seriously, you invalidate your entire argument as a farce with such a stupid rationalization for wasting tax dollars.



Your question: "You think we need to spend all this money to see if dark stuff gets hotter in the sun?"

Answer: No, of course not. Nothing about any of this has anything to do with your silly question. Good job, Cap'n BS.


I'm sorry, I assumed you understood how heat radiates. We can have Mr. Wizard explain that next. :lol:

I'm dying here. When you were talking about trials I assumed you meant wear/durability and traffic safety, not a full-on global warming science fair project.


Maybe you should just read what I wrote, instead of making up your own BS.

"Reducing the localized temp increases from dark surfaces". It's a pretty simple concept. People have been working on reducing urban heat for a while now.


You keep saying the same thing over and over as if that makes it less silly.


I'm hoping at some point, you'll comprehend that what I wrote, and what they're trying to determine, isn't "to see if dark stuff gets hotter in the sun". I'm not optimistic.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2018 7:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:58 pm
Posts: 20585
Party: Draintheswamp
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:

That is weapons-grade, 6th grade science fair stupid. You think we need to spend all this money to see if dark stuff gets hotter in the sun? Maybe you should have just called Mr. Wizard instead of wasting $40k/mi. to paint roads white. :lol:

No seriously, you invalidate your entire argument as a farce with such a stupid rationalization for wasting tax dollars.



Your question: "You think we need to spend all this money to see if dark stuff gets hotter in the sun?"

Answer: No, of course not. Nothing about any of this has anything to do with your silly question. Good job, Cap'n BS.


I'm sorry, I assumed you understood how heat radiates. We can have Mr. Wizard explain that next. :lol:

I'm dying here. When you were talking about trials I assumed you meant wear/durability and traffic safety, not a full-on global warming science fair project.


Maybe you should just read what I wrote, instead of making up your own BS.

"Reducing the localized temp increases from dark surfaces". It's a pretty simple concept. People have been working on reducing urban heat for a while now.


You keep saying the same thing over and over as if that makes it less silly.


I'm hoping at some point, you'll comprehend that what I wrote, and what they're trying to determine, isn't "to see if dark stuff gets hotter in the sun". I'm not optimistic.


I'm laughing my arse off imagining you out there with a thermometer measuring the temperature. I'd love to hear what your test design would look like.

You truly are a Kalifornian, and you look like a dufus defending this idiocy. DC....saving the earth...one $40k mile of white paint at a time.

_________________
“At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child — miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats.”

― P.J. O'Rourke


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2018 8:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:30 pm
Posts: 10451
Glub-glug-glub..pfffffttt....thiiiffft..-ut-ut-ut...
Shreeeewwwwww.....

Yeah.
Let’s paint the roads white, man. It will heal, like, the earth, man. Yeah.


This is stupid shirt, even by Cali standards. :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2018 8:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:20 pm
Posts: 11248
Location: New York, NY
RiverguyVT wrote:
Glub-glug-glub..pfffffttt....thiiiffft..-ut-ut-ut...
Shreeeewwwwww.....

Yeah.
Let’s paint the roads white, man. It will heal, like, the earth, man. Yeah.


This is stupid shirt, even by Cali standards. :lol:


You guys seem to know a lot about the technical merits of the pilot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

_________________
"Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible." - DT(2013)

"We're not going to own it. I'm not going to own it. I can tell you the Republicans are not going to own it." - DT(2017)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2018 8:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:30 pm
Posts: 10451
ip_law-hokie wrote:
RiverguyVT wrote:
Glub-glug-glub..pfffffttt....thiiiffft..-ut-ut-ut...
Shreeeewwwwww.....

Yeah.
Let’s paint the roads white, man. It will heal, like, the earth, man. Yeah.


This is stupid shirt, even by Cali standards. :lol:


You guys seem to know a lot about the technical merits of the pilot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Technical merits of the pilot?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2018 8:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:20 pm
Posts: 11248
Location: New York, NY
RiverguyVT wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
RiverguyVT wrote:
Glub-glug-glub..pfffffttt....thiiiffft..-ut-ut-ut...
Shreeeewwwwww.....

Yeah.
Let’s paint the roads white, man. It will heal, like, the earth, man. Yeah.


This is stupid shirt, even by Cali standards. :lol:


You guys seem to know a lot about the technical merits of the pilot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Technical merits of the pilot?


Correct.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

_________________
"Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible." - DT(2013)

"We're not going to own it. I'm not going to own it. I can tell you the Republicans are not going to own it." - DT(2017)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2018 9:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:57 pm
Posts: 9215
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:

I'm sorry, I assumed you understood how heat radiates. We can have Mr. Wizard explain that next. :lol:

I'm dying here. When you were talking about trials I assumed you meant wear/durability and traffic safety, not a full-on global warming science fair project.


Maybe you should just read what I wrote, instead of making up your own BS.

"Reducing the localized temp increases from dark surfaces". It's a pretty simple concept. People have been working on reducing urban heat for a while now.


You keep saying the same thing over and over as if that makes it less silly.


I'm hoping at some point, you'll comprehend that what I wrote, and what they're trying to determine, isn't "to see if dark stuff gets hotter in the sun". I'm not optimistic.


I'm laughing my arse off imagining you out there with a thermometer measuring the temperature. I'd love to hear what your test design would look like.

You truly are a Kalifornian, and you look like a dufus defending this idiocy. DC....saving the earth...one $40k mile of white paint at a time.


At least you stopped with your moronic nonsense about figuring out if dark surfaces get hot. You slink away from that, and try something else.
Of course, you've moved on to more idiocy. I'm sure you know there are dozens of ways to measure air and surface temps.

As for this trial, I don't really care what you think. You sound like a 75 year old grocery store bagger with a GED.
People who are afraid to try new things never accomplish anything meaningful. This might be a horrible failure. It may work great.
Here's a question. Why do you think $40k/mile is an astronomical number. How much do you think it costs to repave or maintain a mile of road? $1M? $2M? Every 10 or 15 years? What if this sealant gives you an extra year or 2? Then it pays for itself. Of course, you'd never know the answer to that. You'd still be coughing up dirt balls in your covered wagon. :mrgreen:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2018 9:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:58 pm
Posts: 20585
Party: Draintheswamp
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:

I'm sorry, I assumed you understood how heat radiates. We can have Mr. Wizard explain that next. :lol:

I'm dying here. When you were talking about trials I assumed you meant wear/durability and traffic safety, not a full-on global warming science fair project.


Maybe you should just read what I wrote, instead of making up your own BS.

"Reducing the localized temp increases from dark surfaces". It's a pretty simple concept. People have been working on reducing urban heat for a while now.


You keep saying the same thing over and over as if that makes it less silly.


I'm hoping at some point, you'll comprehend that what I wrote, and what they're trying to determine, isn't "to see if dark stuff gets hotter in the sun". I'm not optimistic.


I'm laughing my arse off imagining you out there with a thermometer measuring the temperature. I'd love to hear what your test design would look like.

You truly are a Kalifornian, and you look like a dufus defending this idiocy. DC....saving the earth...one $40k mile of white paint at a time.


At least you stopped with your moronic nonsense about figuring out if dark surfaces get hot. You slink away from that, and try something else.
Of course, you've moved on to more idiocy. I'm sure you know there are dozens of ways to measure air and surface temps.

As for this trial, I don't really care what you think. You sound like a 75 year old grocery store bagger with a GED.
People who are afraid to try new things never accomplish anything meaningful. This might be a horrible failure. It may work great.
Here's a question. Why do you think $40k/mile is an astronomical number. How much do you think it costs to repave or maintain a mile of road? $1M? $2M? Every 10 or 15 years? What if this sealant gives you an extra year or 2? Then it pays for itself. Of course, you'd never know the answer to that. You'd still be coughing up dirt balls in your covered wagon. :mrgreen:


I'm not backing away from anything thermometer boy, but you sure seem to be dodge dip dive dodging back the non-asinine conclusion I gave you a few posts ago. You even managed to eff that up though with your assumption that no other (much cheaper) sealing methods exist.

You're a non-stop excuse factory for your messed up state.

_________________
“At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child — miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats.”

― P.J. O'Rourke


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2018 9:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:57 pm
Posts: 9215
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
You keep saying the same thing over and over as if that makes it less silly.


I'm hoping at some point, you'll comprehend that what I wrote, and what they're trying to determine, isn't "to see if dark stuff gets hotter in the sun". I'm not optimistic.


I'm laughing my arse off imagining you out there with a thermometer measuring the temperature. I'd love to hear what your test design would look like.

You truly are a Kalifornian, and you look like a dufus defending this idiocy. DC....saving the earth...one $40k mile of white paint at a time.


At least you stopped with your moronic nonsense about figuring out if dark surfaces get hot. You slink away from that, and try something else.
Of course, you've moved on to more idiocy. I'm sure you know there are dozens of ways to measure air and surface temps.

As for this trial, I don't really care what you think. You sound like a 75 year old grocery store bagger with a GED.
People who are afraid to try new things never accomplish anything meaningful. This might be a horrible failure. It may work great.
Here's a question. Why do you think $40k/mile is an astronomical number. How much do you think it costs to repave or maintain a mile of road? $1M? $2M? Every 10 or 15 years? What if this sealant gives you an extra year or 2? Then it pays for itself. Of course, you'd never know the answer to that. You'd still be coughing up dirt balls in your covered wagon. :mrgreen:


I'm not backing away from anything thermometer boy, but you sure seem to be dodge dip dive dodging back the non-asinine conclusion I gave you a few posts ago. You even managed to eff that up though with your assumption that no other (much cheaper) sealing methods exist.

You're a non-stop excuse factory for your messed up state.


LOL. That's too bad you're not backing away, that was a dumb statement.
I have no idea what conclusion you're talking about - please tell me what that was.

As for an assumption about the cost, I didn't make any. I asked YOU why YOU thought $40k/mile is a lot.
I don't know if it is or not. I'm sure there are other sealants that are cheaper, but are they as effective?
Again, I don't know.

As to your last point, there are lots of messed up things about Cali. There are also lots of great things. I'm not making excuses for this, I just think you sound like a triggered curmudgeon. It's odd to me that a dude living on the other side of the country is worked up over how LA is spending LA resident tax dollars. Then again, you live in a state with all the bad lefty CA socialist leanings, but without the great weather, the beaches, the hot chicks, and an economic base that actually matters in the world. I can see how that could irk you.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2018 10:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:58 pm
Posts: 20585
Party: Draintheswamp
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:

I'm hoping at some point, you'll comprehend that what I wrote, and what they're trying to determine, isn't "to see if dark stuff gets hotter in the sun". I'm not optimistic.


I'm laughing my arse off imagining you out there with a thermometer measuring the temperature. I'd love to hear what your test design would look like.

You truly are a Kalifornian, and you look like a dufus defending this idiocy. DC....saving the earth...one $40k mile of white paint at a time.


At least you stopped with your moronic nonsense about figuring out if dark surfaces get hot. You slink away from that, and try something else.
Of course, you've moved on to more idiocy. I'm sure you know there are dozens of ways to measure air and surface temps.

As for this trial, I don't really care what you think. You sound like a 75 year old grocery store bagger with a GED.
People who are afraid to try new things never accomplish anything meaningful. This might be a horrible failure. It may work great.
Here's a question. Why do you think $40k/mile is an astronomical number. How much do you think it costs to repave or maintain a mile of road? $1M? $2M? Every 10 or 15 years? What if this sealant gives you an extra year or 2? Then it pays for itself. Of course, you'd never know the answer to that. You'd still be coughing up dirt balls in your covered wagon. :mrgreen:


I'm not backing away from anything thermometer boy, but you sure seem to be dodge dip dive dodging back the non-asinine conclusion I gave you a few posts ago. You even managed to eff that up though with your assumption that no other (much cheaper) sealing methods exist.

You're a non-stop excuse factory for your messed up state.


LOL. That's too bad you're not backing away, that was a dumb statement.
I have no idea what conclusion you're talking about - please tell me what that was.

As for an assumption about the cost, I didn't make any. I asked YOU why YOU thought $40k/mile is a lot.
I don't know if it is or not. I'm sure there are other sealants that are cheaper, but are they as effective?
Again, I don't know.

As to your last point, there are lots of messed up things about Cali. There are also lots of great things. I'm not making excuses for this, I just think you sound like a triggered curmudgeon. It's odd to me that a dude living on the other side of the country is worked up over how LA is spending LA resident tax dollars. Then again, you live in a state with all the bad lefty CA socialist leanings, but without the great weather, the beaches, the hot chicks, and an economic base that actually matters in the world. I can see how that could irk you.


1. Lol, I'm not going to disprove your assumption which you assume is baseless - but here's the best part: I don't need to. Roads don't get sealed.

2. Right, you don't make excuses for California, except when you jump into almost every California thread to defend California. It's just like how you're totally not a liberal, except for when you jump into almost every thread pertaining to conservatives and attack them.

3. Still waiting for you to explain your test design to prove that you can counteract global warming using $40k/mi white paint for roads. :lol:

_________________
“At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child — miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats.”

― P.J. O'Rourke


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2018 10:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:57 pm
Posts: 9215
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:

I'm hoping at some point, you'll comprehend that what I wrote, and what they're trying to determine, isn't "to see if dark stuff gets hotter in the sun". I'm not optimistic.


I'm laughing my arse off imagining you out there with a thermometer measuring the temperature. I'd love to hear what your test design would look like.

You truly are a Kalifornian, and you look like a dufus defending this idiocy. DC....saving the earth...one $40k mile of white paint at a time.


At least you stopped with your moronic nonsense about figuring out if dark surfaces get hot. You slink away from that, and try something else.
Of course, you've moved on to more idiocy. I'm sure you know there are dozens of ways to measure air and surface temps.

As for this trial, I don't really care what you think. You sound like a 75 year old grocery store bagger with a GED.
People who are afraid to try new things never accomplish anything meaningful. This might be a horrible failure. It may work great.
Here's a question. Why do you think $40k/mile is an astronomical number. How much do you think it costs to repave or maintain a mile of road? $1M? $2M? Every 10 or 15 years? What if this sealant gives you an extra year or 2? Then it pays for itself. Of course, you'd never know the answer to that. You'd still be coughing up dirt balls in your covered wagon. :mrgreen:


I'm not backing away from anything thermometer boy, but you sure seem to be dodge dip dive dodging back the non-asinine conclusion I gave you a few posts ago. You even managed to eff that up though with your assumption that no other (much cheaper) sealing methods exist.

You're a non-stop excuse factory for your messed up state.


LOL. That's too bad you're not backing away, that was a dumb statement.
I have no idea what conclusion you're talking about - please tell me what that was.

As for an assumption about the cost, I didn't make any. I asked YOU why YOU thought $40k/mile is a lot.
I don't know if it is or not. I'm sure there are other sealants that are cheaper, but are they as effective?
Again, I don't know.

As to your last point, there are lots of messed up things about Cali. There are also lots of great things. I'm not making excuses for this, I just think you sound like a triggered curmudgeon. It's odd to me that a dude living on the other side of the country is worked up over how LA is spending LA resident tax dollars. Then again, you live in a state with all the bad lefty CA socialist leanings, but without the great weather, the beaches, the hot chicks, and an economic base that actually matters in the world. I can see how that could irk you.


1. Lol, I'm not going to disprove your assumption which you assume is baseless - but here's the best part: I don't need to. Roads don't get sealed.

2. Right, you don't make excuses for California, except when you jump into almost every California thread to defend California. It's just like how you're totally not a liberal, except for when you jump into almost every thread pertaining to conservatives and attack them.

3. Still waiting for you to explain your test design to prove that you can counteract global warming using $40k/mi white paint for roads. :lol:


No one has a test design to counteract global warming, because that's not the goal.

This is what they're trying to do. At least read this so you can B&M about the actual purpose, instead of your knee jerk made up nonsense.

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/feb/21/urban-heat-islands-cooling-things-down-with-trees-green-roads-and-fewer-cars


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2018 10:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:58 pm
Posts: 20585
Party: Draintheswamp
HokieFanDC wrote:
No one has a test design to counteract global warming, because that's not the goal.



Did you read the link in my original post? That's exactly what the government ("bureau of street services"... Lol, wtf?) says they're doing.

Even better, it sounds like they literally did measure the street surface temperature to "prove" that it works at combating climate change.

http://bss.lacity.org/PDFs/STREET_TALK_2017_05.pdf

Again, the truth is probably that this whole thing is a kickback to someone.

_________________
“At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child — miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats.”

― P.J. O'Rourke


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2018 10:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:57 pm
Posts: 9215
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
No one has a test design to counteract global warming, because that's not the goal.



Did you read the link in my original post? That's exactly what the government ("bureau of street services"... Lol, wtf?) says they're doing.

Even better, it sounds like they literally did measure the street surface temperature to "prove" that it works at combating climate change.

http://bss.lacity.org/PDFs/STREET_TALK_2017_05.pdf

Again, the truth is probably that this whole thing is a kickback to someone.


Here's exactly what it says they are doing.

"Officials in Los Angeles have been painting streets white to reduce the effect of urban "heat islands" and combat the effects of climate change.

And the goal of combating the effect of climate change, ie heat: "The goal of these efforts are reducing the risk of heat-related deaths, to save energy by reducing air conditioning, and replicate these results in each council districts designated streets."

And of course they're measuring street temps. The less heat in the roads, the cooler the whole area.

Could it be a kickback, sure. You can say that about almost any govt program, anywhere.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2018 4:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:58 pm
Posts: 20585
Party: Draintheswamp
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
No one has a test design to counteract global warming, because that's not the goal.



Did you read the link in my original post? That's exactly what the government ("bureau of street services"... Lol, wtf?) says they're doing.

Even better, it sounds like they literally did measure the street surface temperature to "prove" that it works at combating climate change.

http://bss.lacity.org/PDFs/STREET_TALK_2017_05.pdf

Again, the truth is probably that this whole thing is a kickback to someone.


Here's exactly what it says they are doing.

"Officials in Los Angeles have been painting streets white to reduce the effect of urban "heat islands" and combat the effects of climate change.

And the goal of combating the effect of climate change, ie heat: "The goal of these efforts are reducing the risk of heat-related deaths, to save energy by reducing air conditioning, and replicate these results in each council districts designated streets."

And of course they're measuring street temps. The less heat in the roads, the cooler the whole area.

Could it be a kickback, sure. You can say that about almost any govt program, anywhere.


1. Try harder. They (the government) said they're doing it to combat global warming. You're quoting FoxNews.

2. Oh look, we've returned to the stupid 6th grade science fair project where we learn that lighter colors reflect more heat which you've tried to deny. Again, maybe you should call Mr. Wizard instead of wasting $40k/mile on white paint if that's supposed to be the measure of its efficacy.

_________________
“At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child — miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats.”

― P.J. O'Rourke


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2018 8:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:30 pm
Posts: 10451
Technical merits of the pilot. :lol:

(Takes bong hit, holds it and speaks without breathing) “Hey, brah..does it feel cooler in here now to you?”
(Blows out hit, passes bong to the second Bureau of Silly Walks and Roads bureaucrat) “Yeeeeaah! Painting those roads white, like I told you, worked, man!!”

(Packs new bowl, looks out the window at the setting sun...). “Maybe we should paint beaches in July, man. My bud burned his heels surfing last summer. It gets hot!”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2018 10:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 8:29 pm
Posts: 6439
$40k per mile is about $0.30 per square foot. Not unreasonable for an in place cost.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 78 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Time zone: America/New_York [ DST ]


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: