tandempower

Why are we talking about building codes? Instead of just accepting the truth of what I said about tarps (and awnings) shading roofs and buildings where tree shade is lacking, you've turned it into a discussion about the relationship between building codes and reality. The reality for many people is they live in an unshaded trailer or single-family house that would use a lot less energy if the sun wasn't hitting it directly. Thank goodness if the building codes allow every form of shade, no matter how inexpensive, so that shade doesn't become a luxury privilege of the wealthy. If not, people will break building codes, and probably get fined, for hanging tarps above their roofs, if they are smart and diligent enough to do so.

I don't have time to beg for approval for things that make sense. I know there are thick-headed people and bureaucracies and red tape. All you can do is tell them they're restricting things that are good and right and if they don't care and go on fighting good and right, you're dealing with an abusive/corrupt authority regime. That's the reality, and it is reality for many people in many situations. You call it for what it is and wait for the consciences of those in power to catch up to them.

Why are you raising this topic for discussion? What's your point? Why don't you just post a big, "I CAN'T" instead of going on and on about how reality doesn't anymore include skills that people used to have to have to survive?

You're just discussing politics now. Why would I want to listen to someone say this same thing I've heard so many times before? Do you really think you're the first person to say this?

The premise of the thread is that investors discover that auto-inelasticity is a surer guarantee of GDP growth than areas where driving is more of an option or non-existant. So in this scenario, investors and businesses concentrate investments in areas where their analyses tell them they will make more money, i.e. where auto-related sales are less elastic. Similarly, if carfree living emerges in an area, they may tolerate it for a while but then disinvest to move their money to areas where driving is exclusive or at least more inelastic. In this way, the investment community can discipline the public to choose driving-mandatory areas and avoid carfree areas, or areas where carfree living is a convenient option.

Then, the hunger games part of the scenario is introduced where they start packing people into the auto-inelastic areas to save money on roads and highways. This is where the motor-congestion comes into play. At this point in the scenario, you can move to the most congested yet auto-inelastic area and spend hours commuting each day to enjoy the highest paying jobs funded by the most investment. Below that, you can move to an area that is more sprawling with roads and with less drivers, but you still have to drive a long way, just with not as much congestion. Then you have carfree areas where there is little or no investment because people in those areas don't buy cars, car insurance, fuel, tires, etc. Those areas only have low-income jobs because investors don't want to risk losing precious revenues from auto-spending, which could cause GDP-growth to slow.

If it were a movie. the story could focus on an area that is growing more carfree, with conflict emerging between those who want to keep the area rich by maintaining auto-inelasticity and those who are tired of submitting to automotivism and are ready to go carfree nevermind the income losses. You could have terrorism against the carfree people, government rules making cycling and walking more of a hassle, etc. You could also have the story end in a number of ways, e.g. with the carfree people winning and overthrowing the cruel auto-inelasticity regime, or with the auto-inelasticity winning and subduing all the cyclists into driving exclusively. Since it's a movie, though, it would have to be dramatic and people would have to choose strongly for carfree living and basically be beaten into submission so that they drive. It would be good dystopian movie, don't you think? Maybe not as good as Hunger Games, but maybe close.

Bandera

When is that you were planning on "telling them" about what is/is-not "good and right" in person to advocate in an open public forum as provided by law?
Forgot, Never: "I don't have time to beg for approval".
Busy man, guess whatever "good and right" is just isn't that important.

If a position on public policy is never raised in the appropriate public venue it will never be considered much less acted on and certainly not fought against by the "abusive/corrupt authority regime".
Oddly enough in my locality it is considered bad form to "beg" the abusive/corrupt authority regime when a simple bribe will suffice.

So dies Uber-tarpism for lack of effort in the Real World. The abusive/corrupt authority regime needn't lift a crooked finger.

-Bandera

Bandera

Surprised, not at all.
It would be a commonplace observation that Demonizing those who pay wages to citizens who agree to work for them smacks of the rhetoric of class warfare.

-Bandera

tandempower

Your bully language is provocative. Don't start a bickering battle. Stay neutral or leave the forum. I'm telling you right now what's good and right. I'll tell anyone who listens. I don't have to do more than that. Word gets around or it doesn't. There's nothing special about me. Anyone can figure out that a tarp can be used to shade a roof. It's not rocket science. That doesn't mean there aren't people, like you, who prefer to worry about the politics of building codes than just know that they're wrong if the prohibit energy-saving measures like shading a roof.

It's one thing when a building code is set up for safety; but it's something else when it's designed to impede competition for expensive reflective roofs, or whatever businesses are trying to make money on. I'll say it one more time so you get the main point: suspending some form tarp over a roof can shade it when tree shade is absent. If you want to try it, you don't have to pay me any royalties for the idea. If you don't, don't harass others who do about building codes. That's all.

You have a twisted mind. I've explained how to save energy. If you want to discuss it more, start a thread on energy efficiency.

The corrupt can laugh all the way to hell and they'll probably keep laughing there. Those of us who care about decency aren't laughing, though, because we don't like going down in flames because we're too arrogant to care about corrupt authority.

Please stop posting provocative comments. It makes forum discussions so unpleasant.

mconlonx

Oh. I thought the premise of the thread was the OP, post no. 1. My mistake.

Roody

Yes, like cars in 1880 and the internet in 1980. A lot of people were talking about them, but they didn't yet exist in the real world. Were they fantasy or delusion? Now both are considered necessary for existence.

Roody

Again, you're using silly straw man arguments and slippery slope nonsense rather than actually addressing the issue. Very cutesy, I'll reply when you got something better.

Roody

That would require saying something positive about carfree living, which some members of this forum would never do.

But I agree with you. If anybody is trapped into a car-dependant life, it's the poorer people. Although changing rapidly, inner city Detroit is a nightmare place to be carfree because transit is crappy and most of the low income jobs are many miles away in the suburbs. Nevertheless, 25% of the people are carfree, but just "making do." Whereever you go, places like McDonalds and Walmart often won't even hire you unless you own a "reliable" car.

Wealthy people, OTOH, can often live carfree with great ease. Somebody like Warren Buffet, I believe, could easily be carfree, even if he owns a yacht, a jet and a helicopter. If he needs ground transport, a lot of people would be more than willing to give him a ride.

Roody

1. First, clean the debris from your roof. Locate the leaking area by looking for broken or missing shingles or panels, and check the underside of the sheathing in the attic for water stains. Then, unroll the tarp over the damaged area, allowing 4 feet to overhang the peak. Use cap nails to attach the tarp to 2x4's.Oct 28, 2011
   [h=3]How to Tarp a Roof - Hurricane Preparedness - YouTube [/h]www.youtube.com/watch?v=qC4ynfF8JrE
   
   
   

Phil_gretz

In any of the four communities in which I've lived for the last 33 years, a tarp on the roof can be only a temporary measure, and anything left long enough to notice must be approved by the community for a temporary purpose.

Tarps are not designed to meet standards for longevity, or storm and wind resistance. They'd be torn off in short order by summer storms and would wind up in some drainage ditch or worse, a waterway.

Tarps are not for permanent applications. C'mon. Anything permanent must be rated at least 75 mph sustained, right?

Bandera

Both were a Fantasy until actual prototypes were under development in the Real world.
Science Fiction and Fantasy are just that, fiction and fantasy.

If either concept had no possible development potential, and yet it was clung too with unrealistic zeal it would be a Delusion.

-Bandera

Roody

Well, the ones who talked about them before they were "real" were the ones who made millions. I hope tandempower will still associate with us when he becomes rich and famous as the Tarp King.

Bandera

Actually the people who just talked about either just got to exercise their mouths: Benz, Ford and Intel made/make the Billions.
Another difference between the Fantasists and the Entrepreneurs................

-Bandera

Roody

It was Ford and Olds that I was thinking about when I said that, actually. Both were great engineers, but it was their talking skills and future vision that enabled them to make their "fantasies and delusions" come true. They were poor men, but they were able to conince some rich people to back their preposterous sounding ideas. The point is, something can be "real" even before it physically exists, because it exists in the mind of visionaries.

If you study the history of southern Michigan, you come away with great respect for these auto pioneers, even if you believe, as I do, that the era of their amazing invention is passing away. They endured a lot of mocking and ricicule, as anybody with a revolutionary idea usually does.

Sorry, this is all off topic, but I hate to see people poo-pooing any ideas that are new and radical, because you really never know...

Bandera

So dating apps and robotic vacuum cleaners don't compare to electric lights, safe municipal water supplies or the Model T?

Something can be a good idea in a person's mind but it becomes Real when it is physically present and not before.

-Bandera

Roody

When it comes to ranking inventions, most of the truly life changing ones came about before 1910. But my own grandmothers could remember living before there were phones, cars, planes, TV, radio, or even electricity and running water in most homes. Nobody knows what will be around when my grandson is an old man, but it could be tarps or any number of things.

Ekdog

The birth control pill has to be ranked amongst the top inventions of the 20th century.

Mobile 155

Roody:
I didn't need your response. It was all I needed in Tandempower's response. The solution to AC, the promoting to wood burning and the living in forests with small homes and or RVs. Tandempower oven modified his reason for not digging I uranium .

So thanks for your concern but it was unnecessary.

tandempower

If only it were true! It's only my idea to put it over the roof of a house for energy efficiency. I just googled "permanent shade tarp" and got plenty of photos of various tarps stretched over playgrounds, picnic tables, car ports, etc. Apparently protecting the car from sun makes sense for some people while letting the house soak up the heat so they can spend more money on the heat pump. I wonder if pre-modern people would make this same logical mistake.


Google "permanent shade tarp." There are plenty of examples. I think they must be code-worthy because I've seen them in public playgrounds built by municipal authorities. I doubt they broke code building a playground.

tandempower

Changed my reason? I said the core is insulated by the mantle and so the temperature of the mantle plays a role in keeping the core warm. Obviously the mantle has formed as the core has cooled and shrunk inward. A loaf of bread also cools from the outside inward. If you dig into the mantle to get the uranium, it's like poking holes in a crust of freshly baked bread. What's more, you're not just poking holes, your poking them and taking out the hottest embers that keep the inside warm. Ok, the metaphor broke down when embers came into question, but hopefully you get my meaning. The planet is a slowly-cooling ball of magma. Mining doesn't slow the cooling process. It accelerates it.

tandempower

But wouldn't it make a great dystopian movie:

Neddog

I disagree. I think having a sustainable, low-expense lifestyle is much more sustainable than a high-wage job. I'm nearly 40 years old. I know that jobs are not a permanent fixture in anybody's life. They come and they go. If you get yourself stuck with high expenses, living out in the middle of nowhere and requiring large transportation expenses to commute to work, relying on that job to always be there for you... you could be in for a surprise.

If you instead look at a low-cost lifestyle and keeping your life free of extraneous expenses, then you will be able to survive no matter what your work situation holds.

Many of my friends end up in serious pinches, losing their jobs and becoming homeless because they have all these high rents, car payments, etc. which they cannot afford without being a slave to their work. When that work disappears, it is devastating.

I'm the opposite way. Most of my expenses are actually for my work, as I run my own business. I have tens of thousands of dollars of investments in my business which I would not want to lose if I couldn't pay my rent or something. However, if I were to lose my job I would actually come out ahead of the game and would free up my finances. I could then work piddly hours and still survive just fine. I'm not actually tied to work with a financial yoke. I actually work because I enjoy it.

In short... low-cost is MUCH more "sustainable" than high-income.

Also... when you are reliant on a car to keep your job, as I have been in many periods of my life, when something goes wrong and you are suddenly met with thousands of dollars in repair bills which you may not have on hand, there goes your high-income job... I've had it happen. I have never had that problem since I switched to cycling. When something goes wrong I fix it myself, and I also keep at least 1 or 2 backup bikes in case, since I rely on them for my commute (year-round, in the winter as well). That again, is "sustainability".

Machka 

We chose something like that when we lived in a small town in Victoria.

Not really high income, but decent.
We had a car, but I was able to walk to work, and even home at lunch, quite easily.
We also walked or cycled on just about all our in-town trips ... to the grocery store, library, pizza place, night classes, church, etc. etc.
Rent was inexpensive because it was a small town in the middle of nowhere, so our decent income went further.
And about the only time we really used the car was once or twice a month on a weekend.

Machka 

He's gone on to modify the premise several times ... when we didn't give the right answer.

tandempower

You wouldnt accept the premise as an either-or choice and insisted on revising it to suit your sense of realism, which defeated both the purpose of the thought experiment and the logic behind it, which was maximizing inelasticity in automotive markets in certain areas and then concentrating investment and jobs in those areas but not in areas where going carfree is easier.