Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

toastiepie    

Rank #27176 on Comments
no avatar Level 177 Comments: Soldier Of Funnyjunk
Offline
Send mail to toastiepie Block toastiepie Invite toastiepie to be your friend
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:10/11/2012
Last Login:7/29/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#27176
Highest Content Rank:#1610
Highest Comment Rank:#5276
Content Thumbs: 2221 total,  2360 ,  139
Comment Thumbs: 785 total,  838 ,  53
Content Level Progress: 21% (21/100)
Level 122 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry → Level 123 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry
Comment Level Progress: 40% (4/10)
Level 177 Comments: Soldier Of Funnyjunk → Level 178 Comments: Soldier Of Funnyjunk
Subscribers:0
Content Views:76352
Times Content Favorited:167 times
Total Comments Made:136
FJ Points:2996

latest user's comments

#7 - Varg <3 He is my hero 10/08/2013 on Erectritian. -1
#38 - Fact Don't fuckle with Shuckle 10/07/2013 on Pokemon Facts #1 0
#57 - What it would do is due to the magnetic field of the MRI it wo… 10/02/2013 on Suprising marriage proposal +1
#6 - I once asked my Chem Teacher if he could cook meth He proc…  [+] (1 new reply) 09/25/2013 on Dang ol' 4th period man +6
#7 - reaperboy (09/25/2013) [-]
It really isn't. because of my chem teacher i have the knowledge to survive a post apocalyptic scenario and make tasty as fuck rum
#9 - The only AA that is acceptable is Amon Amarth  [+] (1 new reply) 09/21/2013 on Asking 0
User avatar #10 - theholyfrog (10/27/2013) [-]
What about Batteries?
#14 - Well here in Australia, the highest tax rate is 49% The Ta…  [+] (1 new reply) 09/21/2013 on Tumbling 0
User avatar #15 - TARDIS (09/21/2013) [-]
I'm trying to remember my history on this but...

The U.S. had something similar the that back in the mid 1900's. The idea was that there where these 'swollen fortunes' that you could take a lager chunk of money from and it wouldn't hurt them at all because that so much of it. But you could take that money and send it down to the people on the lower end of the economic scale and help them tremendously. And by getting the money moving you it would help the economy, because instead of just sitting in a bank account or being used to make the rich richer, the money would be spent to buy things which you need for a healthy economy.
#12 - It's called hyperbole  [+] (8 new replies) 09/21/2013 on Tumbling 0
#13 - TARDIS (09/21/2013) [-]
All I'm hearing is the old "rich people deserve all the money they get" thing, and I'm sick of it.

They might earn more but not this much more.
User avatar #19 - cockassunited (09/21/2013) [-]
A CEO does more to effect the growth and earnings of the company than an average worker, if you're a CEO and you have a slip of the tongue it could cripple the company. Despite popular belief CEO's don't sit around counting money all day, they spend their time growing the company and making sure thousands or millions of people get their paychecks.
User avatar #22 - TARDIS (09/21/2013) [-]
"They might earn more but not this much more."
Read the god dam comment.

And while you at it, look at the image.
Since 1978 CEO pay has increased over 700% and work pay only 5%. If people are being payed fairly that would mean all of the growth is due to the CEOs. That is not the case.

The pay is not fair.
User avatar #23 - cockassunited (09/21/2013) [-]
A good CEO can mean the difference between the company making a million dollars and fifty million, they're making more now because there are more ways to make money for the company, via social networking and the like and conversely more ways to loose it by saying/doing stupid shit, CEO work is extremely volatile and when done right they deserve all the ridiculous amounts of money they get. Meanwhile workers still do the same exact job they did back then.
#24 - TARDIS (09/21/2013) [-]
I have made my point, I'm done.
User avatar #25 - cockassunited (09/21/2013) [-]
Ad homenims instead of an actual argument? Nice.
#14 - toastiepie (09/21/2013) [-]
Well here in Australia, the highest tax rate is 49%
The Tax is scaled to your income with 49% being the highest

I could turn this into an argument with money being a selective form of fitness in the modern era, but people would become butt flustered
User avatar #15 - TARDIS (09/21/2013) [-]
I'm trying to remember my history on this but...

The U.S. had something similar the that back in the mid 1900's. The idea was that there where these 'swollen fortunes' that you could take a lager chunk of money from and it wouldn't hurt them at all because that so much of it. But you could take that money and send it down to the people on the lower end of the economic scale and help them tremendously. And by getting the money moving you it would help the economy, because instead of just sitting in a bank account or being used to make the rich richer, the money would be spent to buy things which you need for a healthy economy.
#7 - Its called communism Yeah... It didn't work out  [+] (11 new replies) 09/21/2013 on Tumbling 0
User avatar #16 - demigodofmadness (09/21/2013) [-]
To be fair, if everyone was genuinely nice and was more concerned about their neighbor than themselves communism would be great. But people are greedy cock suckers so communism is bad.

Not like I'm excluded from the greedy cock suckers, I want my capitalism so I can shove my wealth into the faces of my friends.
User avatar #9 - TARDIS (09/21/2013) [-]
No, communism is equal pay.
#12 - toastiepie (09/21/2013) [-]
It's called hyperbole
#13 - TARDIS (09/21/2013) [-]
All I'm hearing is the old "rich people deserve all the money they get" thing, and I'm sick of it.

They might earn more but not this much more.
User avatar #19 - cockassunited (09/21/2013) [-]
A CEO does more to effect the growth and earnings of the company than an average worker, if you're a CEO and you have a slip of the tongue it could cripple the company. Despite popular belief CEO's don't sit around counting money all day, they spend their time growing the company and making sure thousands or millions of people get their paychecks.
User avatar #22 - TARDIS (09/21/2013) [-]
"They might earn more but not this much more."
Read the god dam comment.

And while you at it, look at the image.
Since 1978 CEO pay has increased over 700% and work pay only 5%. If people are being payed fairly that would mean all of the growth is due to the CEOs. That is not the case.

The pay is not fair.
User avatar #23 - cockassunited (09/21/2013) [-]
A good CEO can mean the difference between the company making a million dollars and fifty million, they're making more now because there are more ways to make money for the company, via social networking and the like and conversely more ways to loose it by saying/doing stupid shit, CEO work is extremely volatile and when done right they deserve all the ridiculous amounts of money they get. Meanwhile workers still do the same exact job they did back then.
#24 - TARDIS (09/21/2013) [-]
I have made my point, I'm done.
User avatar #25 - cockassunited (09/21/2013) [-]
Ad homenims instead of an actual argument? Nice.
#14 - toastiepie (09/21/2013) [-]
Well here in Australia, the highest tax rate is 49%
The Tax is scaled to your income with 49% being the highest

I could turn this into an argument with money being a selective form of fitness in the modern era, but people would become butt flustered
User avatar #15 - TARDIS (09/21/2013) [-]
I'm trying to remember my history on this but...

The U.S. had something similar the that back in the mid 1900's. The idea was that there where these 'swollen fortunes' that you could take a lager chunk of money from and it wouldn't hurt them at all because that so much of it. But you could take that money and send it down to the people on the lower end of the economic scale and help them tremendously. And by getting the money moving you it would help the economy, because instead of just sitting in a bank account or being used to make the rich richer, the money would be spent to buy things which you need for a healthy economy.
#90 - Women never competed in THE Olympic games, they had a separate… 09/19/2013 on Spartan Trivia +2
#20 - More than EVERY Hollywood blockbuster ever made Before i r… 09/10/2013 on Money in the bank... 0
#8 - If that's what you want Come to Australia  [+] (1 new reply) 09/08/2013 on Like a King! +6
User avatar #15 - jinxbomb (09/08/2013) [-]
no. i like my games to be cheaper than my petrol
#9 - I think you missed the point of the electric car Its not t…  [+] (6 new replies) 09/07/2013 on I love xkcd 3 0
#11 - treewithbranches (09/07/2013) [-]
I didn't miss the point, we just wouldn't have any transportation benefit from fusion power if it was invented tomorrow. Fusion doesn't solve cars today, because the cars today use overwhelmingly combustion engines. These cars cannot be improved by extra electricity.

By the time we get fusion, if we get it, we'll have run the full course of oil anyway and the world will have already changed away from that. Fusion has been 20 years away for many decades, but the oil is going to dry up in probably less than 40 from now. I'd bet on oil drying up more heavily than I'd bet on fusion.
User avatar #42 - snowshark (09/07/2013) [-]
I sincerely disagree. See, science is a lot further along than most people think it is and it is only progressing faster. I fully expect fusion power sooner or later.

Also I would put my money on hydrogen powered vehicles before electricity. Electric vehicles are just far too inconvenient and rely on us developing powerful batteries which will be very expensive, meaning car prices will rise. To make an electric car a possibility as viable as the current combustion engine relies on far too many variables, especially on being able to charge the batteries quickly enough.

No, I feel fuel cells are the future because they are just much more convenient for everyday use, the cars will be less complex and the only real issue would be meeting the demand for fuel which, if we were to improve our energy situation, we should be able to do far sooner than we make a viable electric car.
#44 - treewithbranches (09/07/2013) [-]
Hydrogen powered cars? They gave up on that pursuit already. The energy put into the process was higher than the energy you got back. Too inefficient and with too many problems to get pure hydrogen. Batteries are the future. The bigger companies are only holding off so they can cut down on investment costs, and have someone else shoulder the risk or deviating from the internal combustion engine. The batteries will get there, though. Trust me.
User avatar #45 - snowshark (09/07/2013) [-]
I don't see batteries ever being a replacement for the combustion engine. They may be a placeholder but never a replacement. They are far too inefficient because they require too much time to charge. Small town/city-cars perhaps but big vehicles that are expected to move a lot of cargo constantly? Travel over long distance or into uncivilised environments? Those are not problems that batteries will be able to solve. For something like that you need BIG energy and batteries would either take up too much space or take far too long to charge to be a viable replacement for diesel or kerosine, both of which will run out eventually.

(I realise that hydrocarbons are already being synthesised but I don't have faith that that kind of process will be able to yield the results we're looking for unless we get an honest-to-god molecular printer.)

My stock is in hydrogen and there are already busses in London that use fuel cells. Electricity is all well and good but it has too many insolvable issues to say it will be a viable replacement for petrol.

At least that is my view.
#46 - treewithbranches (09/07/2013) [-]
No offense here, but I think you base too much of this on sci-fi. Molecular printers synthesizing molecules has no current basis in reality. Using printers to synthesize chemicals isn't practical. The closest we get to that is making plastic models, and that's about as close to synthesizing chemicals as the moon is to Alpha Centauri.

And yes, batteries have some issues to work out. But they don't drain more energy than they create, so they can and will continue to progress. Long haul trucks may have battery switching stations(such a concept has already been designed and tested). But bottom line, there are battery cars on the road right now. There are no hydrogen powered cars anywhere close to that.
User avatar #47 - snowshark (09/07/2013) [-]
That's why I used the term "Honest to god" as in "wow, this would be fucking awesome" and why it was conditional and used the term 'unless' as opposed to 'until'. It's not impossible since nothing is impossible, we've just not figured out how to do it yet, but it's not something I'm basing my views of the future on.

And as for the batteries thing. The reason those cars are on the road is because they're easier to make and we already had the technology. Like I said, there are fuel-cell powered vehicles on the roads, not in the same numbers as electric vehicles but certainly they are there.

Battery switching stations implies these vehicles are going to need to have standard fittings for batteries across the board, either that or the station will need to stock a large number of several different kinds of batteries for the lorries being made by the different companies.

It also implies that these stations will need to be built and manned at regular intervals so that these heavy goods vehicles will be able to stop off and swap batteries. The stations will also need to carry enough of the battery packs to ensure they don't get caught off guard by the convoys coming through which in turn implies a great deal of coordination across the board.

Batteries in whatever incarnation they come in are astoundingly inconvenient. Whilst fuel cells may not be as efficient they are many, many times more convenient and I am confident that in time we will find ways to make it more viable. It is why I called batteries placeholders. They can't truly replicate the systems of travel we spent the past hundred years building on the back of hydrocarbons. But hydrogen can.

Also, unless these batteries never run down, we'll also need to replace them sooner or later as opposed to fuel cells which won't be anywhere near that big a hassle.
#7 - Can everyone just take a second to realise how much the invent…  [+] (8 new replies) 09/07/2013 on I love xkcd 3 +15
#8 - treewithbranches (09/07/2013) [-]
That technology could solve energy problems, but not everything. No car in any foreseeable future will run on that. Not manageable for something as small as a car. We need better batteries and probably infrastructure for that to help with transportation.

More importantly, oil is used as a material in a lot of other things. It's used in ink, roofing materials, motor oil, insecticides, tires, some car bodies, antiseptics, antihistamines, refrigerant, and various other things. Oil is used for much more than just your car.
#9 - toastiepie (09/07/2013) [-]
I think you missed the point of the electric car
Its not that it has a fusion generator in it
Its that the energy that you use to charge it will come from a clean and cheap power source (nuclear fusion)

Also yes, there are petrochemicals that use petrol but the demand for oil would drastically decrease, thereby still changing everything
#11 - treewithbranches (09/07/2013) [-]
I didn't miss the point, we just wouldn't have any transportation benefit from fusion power if it was invented tomorrow. Fusion doesn't solve cars today, because the cars today use overwhelmingly combustion engines. These cars cannot be improved by extra electricity.

By the time we get fusion, if we get it, we'll have run the full course of oil anyway and the world will have already changed away from that. Fusion has been 20 years away for many decades, but the oil is going to dry up in probably less than 40 from now. I'd bet on oil drying up more heavily than I'd bet on fusion.
User avatar #42 - snowshark (09/07/2013) [-]
I sincerely disagree. See, science is a lot further along than most people think it is and it is only progressing faster. I fully expect fusion power sooner or later.

Also I would put my money on hydrogen powered vehicles before electricity. Electric vehicles are just far too inconvenient and rely on us developing powerful batteries which will be very expensive, meaning car prices will rise. To make an electric car a possibility as viable as the current combustion engine relies on far too many variables, especially on being able to charge the batteries quickly enough.

No, I feel fuel cells are the future because they are just much more convenient for everyday use, the cars will be less complex and the only real issue would be meeting the demand for fuel which, if we were to improve our energy situation, we should be able to do far sooner than we make a viable electric car.
#44 - treewithbranches (09/07/2013) [-]
Hydrogen powered cars? They gave up on that pursuit already. The energy put into the process was higher than the energy you got back. Too inefficient and with too many problems to get pure hydrogen. Batteries are the future. The bigger companies are only holding off so they can cut down on investment costs, and have someone else shoulder the risk or deviating from the internal combustion engine. The batteries will get there, though. Trust me.
User avatar #45 - snowshark (09/07/2013) [-]
I don't see batteries ever being a replacement for the combustion engine. They may be a placeholder but never a replacement. They are far too inefficient because they require too much time to charge. Small town/city-cars perhaps but big vehicles that are expected to move a lot of cargo constantly? Travel over long distance or into uncivilised environments? Those are not problems that batteries will be able to solve. For something like that you need BIG energy and batteries would either take up too much space or take far too long to charge to be a viable replacement for diesel or kerosine, both of which will run out eventually.

(I realise that hydrocarbons are already being synthesised but I don't have faith that that kind of process will be able to yield the results we're looking for unless we get an honest-to-god molecular printer.)

My stock is in hydrogen and there are already busses in London that use fuel cells. Electricity is all well and good but it has too many insolvable issues to say it will be a viable replacement for petrol.

At least that is my view.
#46 - treewithbranches (09/07/2013) [-]
No offense here, but I think you base too much of this on sci-fi. Molecular printers synthesizing molecules has no current basis in reality. Using printers to synthesize chemicals isn't practical. The closest we get to that is making plastic models, and that's about as close to synthesizing chemicals as the moon is to Alpha Centauri.

And yes, batteries have some issues to work out. But they don't drain more energy than they create, so they can and will continue to progress. Long haul trucks may have battery switching stations(such a concept has already been designed and tested). But bottom line, there are battery cars on the road right now. There are no hydrogen powered cars anywhere close to that.
User avatar #47 - snowshark (09/07/2013) [-]
That's why I used the term "Honest to god" as in "wow, this would be fucking awesome" and why it was conditional and used the term 'unless' as opposed to 'until'. It's not impossible since nothing is impossible, we've just not figured out how to do it yet, but it's not something I'm basing my views of the future on.

And as for the batteries thing. The reason those cars are on the road is because they're easier to make and we already had the technology. Like I said, there are fuel-cell powered vehicles on the roads, not in the same numbers as electric vehicles but certainly they are there.

Battery switching stations implies these vehicles are going to need to have standard fittings for batteries across the board, either that or the station will need to stock a large number of several different kinds of batteries for the lorries being made by the different companies.

It also implies that these stations will need to be built and manned at regular intervals so that these heavy goods vehicles will be able to stop off and swap batteries. The stations will also need to carry enough of the battery packs to ensure they don't get caught off guard by the convoys coming through which in turn implies a great deal of coordination across the board.

Batteries in whatever incarnation they come in are astoundingly inconvenient. Whilst fuel cells may not be as efficient they are many, many times more convenient and I am confident that in time we will find ways to make it more viable. It is why I called batteries placeholders. They can't truly replicate the systems of travel we spent the past hundred years building on the back of hydrocarbons. But hydrogen can.

Also, unless these batteries never run down, we'll also need to replace them sooner or later as opposed to fuel cells which won't be anywhere near that big a hassle.
#161 - I cum blood in my ass (It is actually a song guys, seriously)  [+] (1 new reply) 09/07/2013 on time to revive an old... +4
#182 - drillaz (09/07/2013) [-]
cannebel crops
#16 - Step 1 in playing nasus: You deserve all farm in the game no m… 09/07/2013 on Stacks on Stacks 0
#352 - Oh god what have i done 08/31/2013 on Random Sex Roll 0
#350 - **toastiepie rolled a random image posted in comment #70 at…  [+] (1 new reply) 08/31/2013 on Random Sex Roll +1
#352 - toastiepie (08/31/2013) [-]
Oh god what have i done
#13 - Patricia the Grill sounds really hot  [+] (2 new replies) 08/31/2013 on perfect date +19
#32 - deletedmyaccount (08/31/2013) [-]
Yeah, but I hear she's a high steaks gambler.
User avatar #30 - camdonwin (08/31/2013) [-]
rite cause she's a grill Ha
#12 - Comment deleted 08/31/2013 on perfect date 0
#119 - Sunlight causes cancer WE NEED TO BAN THE SUN Ser… 08/31/2013 on Just some I haven't seen on... +2
#122 - An action RPG dungeon Crawler look grab (much like Diablo 2, N… 08/29/2013 on Hi funnyjunk 0
#215 - OP, have you ever played Diablo 2 coz when i picked that s… 08/29/2013 on Need a new game? 0
#137 - Terrifying More like Terrific 08/25/2013 on Old but ... well I don't... +1
#136 - I think he is banned from certain countries now 08/25/2013 on Old but ... well I don't... +2
#133 - I actually like shit myself laughing every time 08/25/2013 on Old but ... well I don't... +1
[ 136 Total ]
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 271 / Total items point value: 1501

Comments(0):

 

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
No comments!
 Friends (0)