Straight Dope Message Board

[SamuelA]

Originally Posted by running coach

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 1551

[running coach]

Originally Posted by SamuelA

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". 1552

[running coach]

From here.

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.

1553

[SamuelA]

Originally Posted by running coach

From here.

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. 1554

[cochrane]

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

Originally Posted by SamuelA

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. 1555

[crowmanyclouds]

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


CMC fnord! 1556

[TroutMan]

Unless the immigrants are hookers. We should let them in. 1557

[Tripler]

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. 1558

[Deltree]

I'm an optimist. Put me down for January 1st. 1559

[Sunny Daze]

Sammy's talking out of his ass again. California's fire problems are easy to solve, dontcha know. 1560

[StarvingButStrong]

Nanobots? Freezing severed heads? 1561

[Ludovic]

Lots of brooms? 1562

[Great Antibob]

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. 1563

[Tripler]

Originally Posted by Deltree

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. 1564

[SamuelA]

Originally Posted by Great Antibob

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.

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. 1565

[Great Antibob]

Originally Posted by SamuelA

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. 1566

[running coach]

Originally Posted by Great Antibob

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. 1567

[SamuelA]

Originally Posted by Great Antibob

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. 1568

[Sunny Daze]

"Properly" is right there in the bolded portion, dipshit. 1569

[Great Antibob]

Originally Posted by SamuelA

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!" 1570

[SamuelA]

Originally Posted by Great Antibob

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. 1571

[TroutMan]

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. 1572

[Great Antibob]

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. 1573

[Tripler]

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." 1574

[SamuelA]

Originally Posted by Great Antibob

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. 1575

[Skywatcher]

Originally Posted by SamuelA

If PG&E is as corrupt as you say, cool.

If? If? 1576

[Great Antibob]

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. 1577

[SamuelA]

Originally Posted by Great Antibob

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. 1578

[Atamasama]

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? 1579

[Isosleepy]

Originally Posted by SamuelA

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. 1580

[Skywatcher]

Who had 20 November? 1581

[Monty]

Originally Posted by Skywatcher

Who had 20 November?

Not I. That's my birthday, too. 1582

[steatopygia]

Accidental birthday presents are the best kind? 1583

[JohnT]

Who knew it was just that easy? 1584

[Atamasama]

Ooh, who gets the Cheetos?! 1585

[digs]

Now let's go around the table and each of us tell what we're thankful for... 1586

[JohnT]

Originally Posted by Tripler

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.

Using "Price is Right" rules (a universally accepted standard), Atamasama is the closest without going over.

Congratulations! 1587

[JohnT]

N/m 1588

[Darren Garrison]

It just hasn't been a good week for skeevy nanotech advocates. 1589

[Atamasama]

Originally Posted by JohnT

Using "Price is Right" rules (a universally accepted standard), Atamasama is the closest without going over.

Congratulations!

Thanks but I was off by two months almost to the day so I don’t think I deserve that. 1590

[JohnT]

Well, the contest wasn't rerun or anything, and it's not like you're getting a Nobel prize on a technicality - claim the victory!

(You don't really have to demand the prize. Just donate it to "a worthy family". ) 1591

[Atamasama]

Originally Posted by JohnT

Well, the contest wasn't rerun or anything, and it's not like you're getting a Nobel prize on a technicality - claim the victory!

(You don't really have to demand the prize. Just donate it to "a worthy family". )

Okay that works, I’ll accept virtual Cheetos then with great pride. 1592

[wolfpup]

It's kind of a little ironic, at least to me, that the reasons Sammy was finally banned are unrelated to the things that bugged me about him most, namely being an obnoxious know-it-all blowhard who arrogantly assumed that his microscopically tiny modicum of knowledge made him superior to any of the world's leading subject matter experts. Solutions to the world's greatest challenges (including immortality and climate change, of course) were always "just" a matter of following Sammy's simple instructions, guaranteed to work.

Annoying as this was, there were other sides to this bloviating twit that were much worse and that we didn't find out about until more recently, like the fact that he was a self-admitted sex tourist and sexual predator, and rather prone to bragging about it. Then it turned out he was a racist, opining that it was plain scientific fact that black people were intellectually inferior to whites, and gratuitously throwing in words like "raghead" to describe certain other cultures. Just a few notes for those who may have forgotten.

Finally, the last straw: he objects to "lowering the bar" to let women and minorities be moderators. Let's keep up the standards here, men! And, after being cautioned not to engage again in his line of discussion about Christine Blasey Ford, accused her of purposeful verbal assault against Kavanaugh for the purpose of causing him harm!

So there were many sides to Sammy. The side that I mostly engaged with was his simplistic and comically inept view of technology, but there were also a few really ugly sides that ultimately did him in. Anyone who might miss the comedy of Sammy's simplistic technological bloviations should remember there was more to him than that. 1593

[Atamasama]

It was SamuelA’s total creep side that bothered me the most. The crazy cryogenic nanobot whatever stuff was sometimes amusing, like watching the idiot propose stopping hurricanes with ice cubes, or the “Amy’s Baking Company” episode of Kitchen Nightmares. (Seriously, that episode of that show is the most fascinating thing I’ve ever seen on TV.)

But bragging about sex tourism with underage women (including advice about it) was what really bothered me and led me to report him. The racism was the shit icing on the asshole cake.

To me it would be like Eccentric Uncle Ernie who always does stupid but amusing antics at Thanksgiving starts suddenly advocating Neo-Nazism and calling for the extermination of minorities, then starts groping your preteen cousin. It goes from “that silly guy” to “someone call the police”. 1594

[Monty]

Originally Posted by Atamasama

But bragging about sex tourism with underage women (including advice about it) was what really bothered me and led me to report him. The racism was the shit icing on the asshole cake.

Ah, fond memories of that twerp freaking out on me when I asked about the criminality of his professed actions.

To me it would be like Eccentric Uncle Ernie who always does stupid but amusing antics at Thanksgiving starts suddenly advocating Neo-Nazism and calling for the extermination of minorities, then starts groping your preteen cousin. It goes from “that silly guy” to “someone call the police”.

That brings to mind the old joke about calling 9-1-1 to report a killing and the operator asks when the killing happened, the caller responds with "In about five minutes from now". I can totally see an interaction like that with that twerp in a family setting. 1595

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by wolfpup

It's kind of a little ironic, at least to me, that the reasons Sammy was finally banned are unrelated to the things that bugged me about him most, namely being an obnoxious know-it-all blowhard who arrogantly assumed that his microscopically tiny modicum of knowledge made him superior to any of the world's leading subject matter experts.

To be fair, though, if being an obnoxious know-it-all blowhard who arrogantly assumes that a microscopically tiny modicum of knowledge makes one superior to any of the world's leading subject matter experts were a bannable offense in and of itself, I would probably have been kicked to the curb years ago. I'm glad the mods went by the book in finally booting him. 1596

[wolfpup]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

To be fair, though, if being an obnoxious know-it-all blowhard who arrogantly assumes that a microscopically tiny modicum of knowledge makes one superior to any of the world's leading subject matter experts were a bannable offense in and of itself, I would probably have been kicked to the curb years ago. I'm glad the mods went by the book in finally booting him.

No, while it's true that bright people tend to be informed and to have opinions on a wide range of matters, it's also true that they know when they're not qualified to comment. Sammy was, in his deluded mind, just the consummate expert on absolutely everything, with the special ability to show how simple technological solutions were to all the world's problems. Which is why the word "just" figured so prominently and humorously in all his pronouncements. "Just" follow his directions, and presto, problem solved! He would dismiss as useless philosophers some of the most stellar figures credited with founding modern cognitive science, for instance, because he had learned something about neurons from an online course, so everything about human cognition was "just" something that Sammy could easily explain. 1597

[manson1972]

Shouldn't this thread be locked? Seems bad form to keep bagging on a guy who was banned. 1598

[Tripler]

Well, color me shocked!!

I hope this thread doesn’t get locked! We have contest winners to announce!

I never really shut down the contest, and IIRC someone picked January 1st. I’m on my cellphone right now, but when I get back this weekend, I’ll dig into the thread.

I echo wolfpup; the kid (in his 30s) tried to impress us with his “knowledge” then turn nasty when proven wrong. Bloviated, self-righteous, arrogant, wannabe are appropriate adjectives.

Let me get home this weekend, and I’ll dig into who won the fresh new bags of Cheetos!

Tripler
‘O joy; what a glorious day!!’ 1599

[zoid]

Originally Posted by manson1972

Shouldn't this thread be locked? Seems bad form to keep bagging on a guy who was banned.

How about a compromise - lock it and make it a sticky. 1600