Straight Dope Message Board

Straight Dope Message Board (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/index.php)
-   The BBQ Pit (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   Technology doesn't work that way - SamuelA's Pit Thread (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=843654)

SamuelA 09-27-2019 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by running coach (Post 21876645)
He doesn't know what a mobile home is.

Neither do you.

mo·bile home
/ˈmōbəl ˈˌhōm/
noun
a large trailer or transportable prefabricated structure that is situated in one particular place and used as a permanent living accommodation.

An RV is a mobile home, as well as the "manufactured home" you are referring to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry%27s_law

running coach 09-27-2019 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamuelA (Post 21886168)
Neither do you.

mo·bile home
/ˈmōbəl ˈˌhōm/
noun
a large trailer or transportable prefabricated structure that is situated in one particular place and used as a permanent living accommodation.

An RV is a mobile home, as well as the "manufactured home" you are referring to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry%27s_law

That is not the typical use of an RV. Especially the permanent part. Most jurisdictions do not allow living in an RV except at specific locations/events/etc.
No one but tech-challenged idiots refer to an RV as a "mobile home".

running coach 09-27-2019 11:12 PM

From here.
Quote:

So, given the language of the HUD law, why are travel trailers, fifth-wheels and park model RVs not required to be built to HUD’s housing standards (motorhomes, by the way, are not part of this discussion because they are specifically exempted from HUD regulation in the HUD law)?

The simple answer is because, due to the distinct evolutionary paths of the products, in 1982 RVs were specifically exempted from manufactured housing standards so long as they meet HUD’s definition of an RV which has been:

A recreational vehicle is a vehicle which is:
(1) Built on a single chassis;
(2) 400 Square feet or less when measured at the largest horizontal projections;
(3) Self-propelled or permanently towable by a light duty truck; and
(4) Designed primarily not for use as a permanent dwelling but as temporary living quarters for recreational, camping, travel, or seasonal use.

The fundamental difference between manufactured housing and RVs was, is and always will be their design intent: RVs are designed for recreational, camping, travel or seasonal use. Manufactured homes are designed to be permanent dwellings. This was the case in 1982, it is the case today and it will be the case in the future.

SamuelA 09-27-2019 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by running coach (Post 21886183)

You're correct. My mistake. I will comment that I have seen RV-based trailer parks where the RVs never move. And when I read the OP I figured their plan was to travel around, which is supposedly pretty inexpensive to do.

cochrane 10-02-2019 11:59 AM

So, has anyone seen Sammy's latest bit of lunacy?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamuelA (Post 21892659)
So, Trump has expressed a desire, per CNN, to have illegal immigrants shot.

This would be an inhumane, despicable act. And it doesn't address the root cause of illegal immigration. (though, in reality, it might be an effective deterrent)

So my first thought is "no, this would be a violation of international law and a failure to use proportional force".

But, then again, trespassers at the Area 51 base can legally be shot for entering a restricted area. The border fencing is Federal property and this is an international border. Could the Feds declare a military controlled zone up and down the border, post signs in multiple languages warning that lethal force is authorized, and fire on anyone that crosses?

Could the President make an executive order authorizing this? Is it within his powers?

If the answer is no, why can the military shoot unarmed area 51 trespassers to prevent them from seeing what's there? What precisely authorizes this?

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...d.php?t=882979

Although, to be fair, he was inspired by Donald's lunacy.

crowmanyclouds 10-02-2019 12:12 PM

We should just decapitate illegal immigrants with nano-robots and keep the frozen brains on Mt Everest.


CMC fnord!

TroutMan 10-02-2019 12:16 PM

Unless the immigrants are hookers. We should let them in.

Tripler 10-02-2019 03:53 PM

Sorry guys! I've been on the road for a little bit.

The udpdated list:

SunnyDaze (8/10 or 11 dependent on privilege restoration);
Oredigger77 (8/13);
Guest Starring: Id! (8/14);
Tripler (8/18);
JohnT (8/21);
TroutMan (8/30);
SlowMovingVehicle (9/4);
Tricoteuse (9/13);
Atamasama (9/22).


Seems we ran through this first round without a winner. I vaguely remember someone saying October though. I'll be happy to sponsor Round #2!

What have I missed in the meantime though?

Tripler
SamuelA: With whom incompetence takes flight, and the imagination soars.

Deltree 10-03-2019 03:46 PM

I'm an optimist. Put me down for January 1st.

Sunny Daze 10-30-2019 03:02 PM

Sammy's talking out of his ass again. California's fire problems are easy to solve, dontcha know.

StarvingButStrong 10-30-2019 03:09 PM

Nanobots? Freezing severed heads?

Ludovic 10-30-2019 03:18 PM

Lots of brooms?

Great Antibob 10-30-2019 03:28 PM

Relatively sane suggestion, actually, by his standards - just clear cut half of California's trees. Simple as that.

Apparently, this is 'cheap', too, and has no drawbacks.

Yup. :dubious:

Tripler 10-30-2019 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deltree (Post 21896204)
I'm an optimist. Put me down for January 1st.

Gotcha covered. For 2020, I'm considering opening up the windows to a one-week spread (Sunday to Saturday).

I'll post updated rules later. I'm upgrading the prize too--adding in New Mexico Green Chile!

Tripler
I bought new Cheetos--ate the old one at the end of Round #1.

SamuelA 10-31-2019 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Great Antibob (Post 21946451)
Relatively sane suggestion, actually, by his standards - just clear cut half of California's trees. Simple as that.

Apparently, this is 'cheap', too, and has no drawbacks.

Yup. :dubious:

Cheap as in it is self funding. Because you sell the wood.

Obviously removing forest has drawbacks. No fucking shit.

It seems that whatever humans do, most of that forest isn't going to be around much longer, as desertification seems to be the outcome...

So cutting it down or splitting it into burn sectors is probably better than the present policy.

Great Antibob 10-31-2019 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamuelA (Post 21947634)
Cheap as in it is self funding. Because you sell the wood.

That helps this year. What about next year when there aren't all the trees but you still need to pay people to maintain the firebreaks, and it's not much cheaper to do that?

Which is the problem in the first place. The current policy, properly implemented, reduces fire risk. The problem, as you are clearly unaware, is that PG&E, among others, went the cheaper route of not doing enough to reduce those risks.

And if we're being honest, it's not cheap at all. Process that much wood is non-negligible. Warehousing alone would be a logistical nightmare. Not all of it, or even much of it, would be useful as lumber, meaning much of it would have to be pulped and we wouldn't recover much money anyway.

Seriously, how little thought did you put into this idiocy?

If your response includes "just do <blank>", you are a moron and should consider that maybe the experts have considered better options.

running coach 10-31-2019 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Great Antibob (Post 21948035)
That helps this year. What about next year when there aren't all the trees but you still need to pay people to maintain the firebreaks, and it's not much cheaper to do that?

Which is the problem in the first place. The current policy, properly implemented, reduces fire risk. The problem, as you are clearly unaware, is that PG&E, among others, went the cheaper route of not doing enough to reduce those risks.

And if we're being honest, it's not cheap at all. Process that much wood is non-negligible. Warehousing alone would be a logistical nightmare. Not all of it, or even much of it, would be useful as lumber, meaning much of it would have to be pulped and we wouldn't recover much money anyway.

Seriously, how little thought did you put into this idiocy?

If your response includes "just do <blank>", you are a moron and should consider that maybe the experts have considered better options.

Sell it as vintage 2019 California firewood.
Next year's vintage will be a much smaller crop and worth far more.

SamuelA 10-31-2019 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Great Antibob (Post 21948035)
That helps this year. What about next year when there aren't all the trees but you still need to pay people to maintain the firebreaks, and it's not much cheaper to do that?

Which is the problem in the first place. The current policy, properly implemented, reduces fire risk. The
problem, as you are clearly unaware, is that PG&E, among others, went the cheaper route of not doing enough to reduce those risks.

And if we're being honest, it's not cheap at all. Process that much wood is non-negligible. Warehousing alone would be a logistical nightmare. Not all of it, or even much of it, would be useful as lumber, meaning much of it would have to be pulped and we wouldn't recover much money anyway.

Seriously, how little thought did you put into this idiocy?

If your response includes "just do <blank>", you are a moron and should consider that maybe the experts have considered better options.

Obviously more than you. Moron. Obviously the current policy doesn't reduce risks or there wouldn't be 20 wildfires at the same time.

Sunny Daze 10-31-2019 01:16 PM

"Properly" is right there in the bolded portion, dipshit.

Great Antibob 10-31-2019 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamuelA (Post 21948200)
Obviously the current policy doesn't reduce risks or there wouldn't be 20 wildfires at the same time.

Are you being serious?

PG&E has rightly been accused of shorting funding for maintenance of their infrastructure, i.e. nothing to do with policy and everything to do with implementation.

As noted in the other thread, dry brush and grasslands are as much a problem, anyway. Cutting down half the trees wouldn't help much anyway, unless utility companies do the maintenance they're already NOT doing. And would create new problems on top of that.

Your solution is to say "Welp, instead of actually doing what we were supposed to, let's try something different that won't work but paint flames on the side to make it go FASTER!"

SamuelA 10-31-2019 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Great Antibob (Post 21948299)
Are you being serious?

PG&E has rightly been accused of shorting funding for maintenance of their infrastructure, i.e. nothing to do with policy and everything to do with implementation.

As noted in the other thread, dry brush and grasslands are as much a problem, anyway. Cutting down half the trees wouldn't help much anyway, unless utility companies do the maintenance they're already NOT doing. And would create new problems on top of that.

Your solution is to say "Welp, instead of actually doing what we were supposed to, let's try something different that won't work but paint flames on the side to make it go FASTER!"

You are a misinformed idiot. Also while you can reasonably try to make the case that converting forest to desert or grasslands is worse in terms of other negatives than constant fires, if there's not a mountain of fuel it's a lot easier to contain. It absolutely would be effective to log out thick firebreaks. Whether or not this would be overall the best idea I can't say. But the present policy is "let the dead wood pile up year after year, making the resultant fire ever worse, and prevent all ignition sources".

This doesn't fucking work. Obviously. If you live in California you can probably just step outside and see the evidence.

TroutMan 10-31-2019 02:29 PM

Congratulations, Sammy. You've thought about this problem as long as Trump did. And evidently with the same amount of research. Maybe try doing a little more, and this time use a source other than your ass.

Great Antibob 10-31-2019 02:37 PM

Indeed so.

If the policy was actually to allow dead trees to pile up, you might have a point.

The actual policy is to clear brush and trim trees. And indeed, the better run electrical utilities in the state (definitely not PG&E) have been doing this and have fewer fire issues.

The problem (for the umpteenth time) is PG&E hasn't been doing that. Instead, they've been diverting those funds to boost (apparent) profits and executive pay packages.

But apparently, the solution isn't to actually implement existing policy rather than ignoring it. It's to send in an army of loggers and forest sweepers. I'm sure PG&E would love diverting the logging and sweeping funds to bonus packages as well.

Tripler 10-31-2019 08:04 PM

From SamuelA's Guide to Economics:

"Use natural leaves from trees as an international form of currency. The natural, stochastic variation in shapes and veins makes counterfeiting impossible. If inflation becomes a problem, burn down all of the forests."

SamuelA 10-31-2019 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Great Antibob (Post 21948482)
Indeed so.

If the policy was actually to allow dead trees to pile up, you might have a point.

The actual policy is to clear brush and trim trees. And indeed, the better run electrical utilities in the state (definitely not PG&E) have been doing this and have fewer fire issues.

The problem (for the umpteenth time) is PG&E hasn't been doing that. Instead, they've been diverting those funds to boost (apparent) profits and executive pay packages.

But apparently, the solution isn't to actually implement existing policy rather than ignoring it. It's to send in an army of loggers and forest sweepers. I'm sure PG&E would love diverting the logging and sweeping funds to bonus packages as well.

If PG&E is as corrupt as you say, cool. I accept that. My point was that a spark from a power line is like the last snowflake that starts an avalanche. And now PG&E is legally allowed to shut off the fucking power, indirectly killing people every time they do it, so they don't get blamed for being the last snowflake.

That's fucking stupid and an obviously faulty theory of liability. If an area of forest is 1 spark from a wildfire, it's going to happen eventually. And if the winds are just right and no firefighting equipment is right there it apparently does 30 billion in damage.

But it's fantasy - like something an eco hippy high on ganja would think - to not realize that is a spark from a power line caused a massive fire that killed dozens of people and did billions in damage, obviously something else would have cause the same thing a very short time later.

A truck blowing a tire, embers from a backyard grill, something.

And, actually, if luck prevented any other fire sources for several years, that would be several more years of flammable materials, making the inevitable fire even worse.

Not how courts for liability work, apparently, but I guess those are run by morons. Or something.

Honestly I have no idea why PG&E is planning to settle. Maybe it's like you say - they could argue this theory but the plaintiffs attorneys are gonna show the cocaine bills or whatever for PG&E execs and the charred bodies of the victims and an email from those execs redirecting funds away from maintenance. Some smoking guns.

Skywatcher 10-31-2019 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamuelA (Post 21949022)
If PG&E is as corrupt as you say, cool.

If? If?

Great Antibob 11-01-2019 03:12 AM

So, basically, "I've have no knowledge of the situation and have done no basic checking of news, much less research, but I'm going to spout off like I have a fucking clue".

Got it. Yeah, your opinion is duly fucking noted.

SamuelA 11-01-2019 03:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Great Antibob (Post 21949448)
So, basically, "I've have no knowledge of the situation and have done no basic checking of news, much less research, but I'm going to spout off like I have a fucking clue".

Got it. Yeah, your opinion is duly fucking noted.

https://www.independent.org/publicat...e.asp?id=12834

Yeah, sure.

Key paragraph :

One fundamental cause is that public agencies and officials succumbed to pressure by environmental groups who pushed for fire-management policies that take a reactive posture (fire suppression), rather than a proactive stance (fire prevention and active management). Although the hope was to preserve land in its “natural state,” this approach set the stage for horrific wildfires by allowing excessive growth of fuels.

Another one:

Stanford University environmental economist Terry Anderson notes that scientific forest management techniques to reduce dangerous fuel loads, including logging, prescribed burns, and thinning, are “continuously thwarted by environmental activists who want to let nature take her course.

Kinda sounds like what I was saying...

What are you saying? Yeah. You come in here, thinking you can safely call me misinformed, and shit yourself.

Atamasama 11-01-2019 08:53 AM

The Independent Institute that you’re quoting is a right wing think tank that denies climate change, wants to privatize Medicare and the military, criticizes civil rights advocates, argues to reduce the size of government, and so on. In other words, it’s an ultra-conservative (strongly libertarian) policy group. They’re not a reliable source for claiming that environmental activists are to blame for the California wildfire issues.

Did you know that before choosing them as a source?

Isosleepy 11-01-2019 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamuelA (Post 21949022)
Honestly I have no idea why PG&E is planning to settle.

Happy to explain. It is because they, unlike you, have information on, and expertise in, the underlying situation. They hire people who not merely come up with some theoretical worldview regarding forest fires, but actually understand all the aspects related to the causes of these fires. Then they have experts who determine what, given those facts, the likely outcome of a court case would be, and what that would cost. I would wager that at no time they consider executives’ cocaine bills, for that matter and as an aside.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:59 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.