The problem with pre-fab construction is that it is in my experience alone cheaper in materials and construction quality than stick built. That's all well and good for the shed I put my lawn-mower in, but not for the tallest building in the world.
As in everything else, it depends.
Some prefabbed construction is put together in jigs, with wood cut in computer controlled saws. Quality controlled with very high standards. The components are put together solidly enough to survive the ride to the homesite without shifting. You're typical mobile home, on the other hand, has undersized studs and are thrown together with day laborers.
I've seen stick built houses where it seemed like every piece of wood was measured out with a micrometer. And I've been on construction sites of the McMansion row-houses, and noted the TAR*-cut studs that didn't touch the top or bottom plates. Roof penetrations for water heater exhaust or sewage vents that were cut with a hatchet, or beat out with a hammer by a day laborer.
Would they call it Tower of Hanoi? And do the get points for turning it upside down?
I could build an even taller building in a shorter time. Just stack the prefab components up the side of a tall mountain. It won't even need an elevator, just leave a lane to drive up. And does the 90 days include the time to do all the prefab?
Please define "assault rifle" without the words "it looks scary". Specifically, what are the functional differences between what you're calling an assault rifle and any other semi-automatic rifle?
They don't come for your guns in a black helicopter. They wonder around the back roads in jeeps, looking for your house, and once they get hopelessly lost, they ask a postman for directions. He'll send them to your house by the long route, while he takes a shortcut to warn you. Then the ATF will walk up to your house, Rambo style, using the wide open driveway and start firing on you in your concealed position. A few hours later, they crawl away licking their wounds, and come back with tanks, while claiming on the news that you are a child molester "WITH A GUN".
YOU don't hear about it, because you spend your time watching MSNBC and such stories don't fit their agenda. A few weeks ago http://theblaze.com had a story up about a body guard (with a valid permit) took down a robber who was shooting up the police and anyone else that happened to be on the sidewalk. Then there are the shootings you don't hear about. The old lady that shoots at someone trying to break into her rural house. I worked with her, so that may be why I heard about it but you didn't. But the point is that what you see on the "news" is a very carefully selected cross-section of what actually happens out there.
During the Rodney King riots in LA, buildings were burned and looted all around one local food cooperative, but didn't touch that one building. What made it special. Community participants standing on the roof with shotguns.
In rural Oklahoma, just recently, a young widow talked to 911 operators with police on the way for a half hour, while a would-be rapist was trying to break down her front door. It was only after he broke through the door that she saved herself and her newborn from impending harm by dropping the slug with her shotgun.
Preparing yourself for senseless criminal acts is not the dumbest thing you could do.
And I should only be allowed to have things that you think I can benefit from? Government is there to watch over and pamper me so that I don't hurt myself? You are a sad commentary on humanity.
It isn't a math test. It's a reading comprehension test. People who are to damn smart to read the whole question get it wrong.
I learned this in 9th grade geometry. I blazed through the class all year. Always had the highest grade and finished the test first. Was so confident at the final that I barely read the questions, and failed it miserably.
The lesson has never left me, and it was probably the most valuable one I got from high school. Understand the problem before you try to solve it.
Look, if politicians don't make up superfluous tripe like this to appease the masses, what are the talking heads at MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News going to bicker about? What are the politicians going to be talking about when they say, "We need to get to work doing the people's business (instead of talking about our graft and corruption)"? How can they talk about how they "got things done" if they've not written or sponsored a list of innocuous single-page bills that they can hang multi-thousand page amendments off of? These 'Bill of Rights' class of bills are absolutely necessary for the proper functioning of a free, bought-and-paid-for government.
I don't understand the retort. Just because they created it doesn't mean they understood it, or what it would do to their "nightly news" propaganda system.
Granted, but you have to give him some slack. He did say publicly that the government (which refers to him) is flying blind and doesn't even understand the basics of what it is they are trying to regulate. Whenever a person is willing to admit ignorance, the person is open to teaching.
When did it become acceptable to post information about people without their permission?
When people started living together.
Seriously, these types of endeavours are analogous to the 18th century "town gossip". And by "these types", I include the credit reporting agencies. They were considered to be borderline rude busybodies then, and the characterization hasn't changed much. If they didn't have politicians in their pockets, there'd be a simple solution to their shenanigans. Simply require them to report to the target what they are reporting to the customer.
That gives me a chance to blow a hole in their database, which is exactly why the companies avoid it at all cost. Much better for them to collect the $14.95, and me to never know why I didn't get hired.
Obama ended the Iraq war on the timetable set by Bush. The only reason that Obama pulled our troops out when he did was because the Iraqi government would not agree to extending the immunity period for our troops. He was negotiating to keep our troops there longer. Please, this is not ancient history. I know MSNBC doesn't like to show you anything but "Hope and Change" speeches, but there are other places that you can visit to get actual information.
It's better, because it is "research"...aka, we don't know the answer, and we may not even be looking in the right direction, but we are searching as hard as we can for the truth. The interactions are poorly understood, but we're not going to understand them unless we keep trying to quantify them. The results are noisy, but we'll never distinquish the signal from the noise unless we keep listening.
Now, that being said, trying to make policy decisions from this type of research is borderline insanity. Until the rules are isolated and verified, you can't make much of it.
In '04 88% of the 60.3% of the 13% of the US population that claim to be black voted for Kerry. In '08, 65.2% of that 13% showed up to vote, and the went 98% for Obama.
13*.60*.88=6.85% of the eligible voting population that was black voted for Kerry 13*.65*.98=8.28% of the eligible voting population that was black voted for Obama
Still, it ignores the number of non-black people that voted for Obama because he was black.
That is only if you ignore the voter turnout. How many black people showed up at the polls just because there was a black person running? Now, this analysis ignores people not showing up due to Kerry and Edwards being completely transparent douche-bags, so please let's give it a wide margin of error. But proceeding, in '04 88% of the 60.3% of the 13% of the US population that claim to be black voted for Kerry. In '08, 65.2% of that 13% showed up to vote, and the went 98% for Obama.
13*.60*.88=6.85% of the eligible voting population was black that voted for Kerry 13*.65*.98=8.28% of the eligible voting population was black that voted for Obama
Really, single data points by definition are not statistically significant, but all we have to go on show somewhere in the range of 1.5% voting for Obama because he was black.
I don't think Warren Buffet is particularly interested in not paying taxes since he specifically campaigned to up his own tax rate, whatever other advantages he may or may not have over others, he's not insanely and cynically greedy,
He campaigned to raise his own taxes, while simultaneously paying lawyers to fight in court to keep from paying the taxes he already owed? While simultaneously ignoring the line on the tax forms asking for a voluntary contribution? If this adds up to you, you need math lessons.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, can I rent an apartment in your building?
The problem with pre-fab construction is that it is in my experience alone cheaper in materials and construction quality than stick built. That's all well and good for the shed I put my lawn-mower in, but not for the tallest building in the world.
As in everything else, it depends.
Some prefabbed construction is put together in jigs, with wood cut in computer controlled saws. Quality controlled with very high standards. The components are put together solidly enough to survive the ride to the homesite without shifting. You're typical mobile home, on the other hand, has undersized studs and are thrown together with day laborers.
I've seen stick built houses where it seemed like every piece of wood was measured out with a micrometer. And I've been on construction sites of the McMansion row-houses, and noted the TAR*-cut studs that didn't touch the top or bottom plates. Roof penetrations for water heater exhaust or sewage vents that were cut with a hatchet, or beat out with a hammer by a day laborer.
*TAR --- that's about right
Would they call it Tower of Hanoi? And do the get points for turning it upside down?
I could build an even taller building in a shorter time. Just stack the prefab components up the side of a tall mountain. It won't even need an elevator, just leave a lane to drive up. And does the 90 days include the time to do all the prefab?
Please define "assault rifle" without the words "it looks scary". Specifically, what are the functional differences between what you're calling an assault rifle and any other semi-automatic rifle?
They don't come for your guns in a black helicopter. They wonder around the back roads in jeeps, looking for your house, and once they get hopelessly lost, they ask a postman for directions. He'll send them to your house by the long route, while he takes a shortcut to warn you. Then the ATF will walk up to your house, Rambo style, using the wide open driveway and start firing on you in your concealed position. A few hours later, they crawl away licking their wounds, and come back with tanks, while claiming on the news that you are a child molester "WITH A GUN".
YOU don't hear about it, because you spend your time watching MSNBC and such stories don't fit their agenda. A few weeks ago http://theblaze.com had a story up about a body guard (with a valid permit) took down a robber who was shooting up the police and anyone else that happened to be on the sidewalk. Then there are the shootings you don't hear about. The old lady that shoots at someone trying to break into her rural house. I worked with her, so that may be why I heard about it but you didn't. But the point is that what you see on the "news" is a very carefully selected cross-section of what actually happens out there.
How many of those massacres occur where guns are prohibited? Where the assailant can safely assume that he will be able to operate unopposed?
During the Rodney King riots in LA, buildings were burned and looted all around one local food cooperative, but didn't touch that one building. What made it special. Community participants standing on the roof with shotguns.
In rural Oklahoma, just recently, a young widow talked to 911 operators with police on the way for a half hour, while a would-be rapist was trying to break down her front door. It was only after he broke through the door that she saved herself and her newborn from impending harm by dropping the slug with her shotgun.
Preparing yourself for senseless criminal acts is not the dumbest thing you could do.
And I should only be allowed to have things that you think I can benefit from? Government is there to watch over and pamper me so that I don't hurt myself? You are a sad commentary on humanity.
And by the time it gets through the FDA certification, it will cost $6,000.
You don't think the guys with the present government mandated back-door monopoly are just going to give up the cash stream without a fight, do you?
It isn't a math test. It's a reading comprehension test. People who are to damn smart to read the whole question get it wrong.
I learned this in 9th grade geometry. I blazed through the class all year. Always had the highest grade and finished the test first. Was so confident at the final that I barely read the questions, and failed it miserably.
The lesson has never left me, and it was probably the most valuable one I got from high school. Understand the problem before you try to solve it.
From your post? Obviously 8*)
What are you, one of those Ron Paul supporters?
Look, if politicians don't make up superfluous tripe like this to appease the masses, what are the talking heads at MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News going to bicker about? What are the politicians going to be talking about when they say, "We need to get to work doing the people's business (instead of talking about our graft and corruption)"? How can they talk about how they "got things done" if they've not written or sponsored a list of innocuous single-page bills that they can hang multi-thousand page amendments off of? These 'Bill of Rights' class of bills are absolutely necessary for the proper functioning of a free, bought-and-paid-for government.
I don't understand the retort. Just because they created it doesn't mean they understood it, or what it would do to their "nightly news" propaganda system.
Granted, but you have to give him some slack. He did say publicly that the government (which refers to him) is flying blind and doesn't even understand the basics of what it is they are trying to regulate. Whenever a person is willing to admit ignorance, the person is open to teaching.
Google is your friend: "warren buffet tax court"
When did it become acceptable to post information about people without their permission?
When people started living together.
Seriously, these types of endeavours are analogous to the 18th century "town gossip". And by "these types", I include the credit reporting agencies. They were considered to be borderline rude busybodies then, and the characterization hasn't changed much. If they didn't have politicians in their pockets, there'd be a simple solution to their shenanigans. Simply require them to report to the target what they are reporting to the customer.
That gives me a chance to blow a hole in their database, which is exactly why the companies avoid it at all cost. Much better for them to collect the $14.95, and me to never know why I didn't get hired.
If you'd been shopping lately, you'd have seen that the Obama Presidency has devalued prices everywhere.
Obama ended the Iraq war on the timetable set by Bush. The only reason that Obama pulled our troops out when he did was because the Iraqi government would not agree to extending the immunity period for our troops. He was negotiating to keep our troops there longer. Please, this is not ancient history. I know MSNBC doesn't like to show you anything but "Hope and Change" speeches, but there are other places that you can visit to get actual information.
So, are you saying that Democrats are racists?
Because Al Sharpton has declared that black people can't be racist?
It's better, because it is "research"...aka, we don't know the answer, and we may not even be looking in the right direction, but we are searching as hard as we can for the truth. The interactions are poorly understood, but we're not going to understand them unless we keep trying to quantify them. The results are noisy, but we'll never distinquish the signal from the noise unless we keep listening.
Now, that being said, trying to make policy decisions from this type of research is borderline insanity. Until the rules are isolated and verified, you can't make much of it.
In '04 88% of the 60.3% of the 13% of the US population that claim to be black voted for Kerry. In '08, 65.2% of that 13% showed up to vote, and the went 98% for Obama.
13*.60*.88=6.85% of the eligible voting population that was black voted for Kerry
13*.65*.98=8.28% of the eligible voting population that was black voted for Obama
Still, it ignores the number of non-black people that voted for Obama because he was black.
That is only if you ignore the voter turnout. How many black people showed up at the polls just because there was a black person running? Now, this analysis ignores people not showing up due to Kerry and Edwards being completely transparent douche-bags, so please let's give it a wide margin of error. But proceeding, in '04 88% of the 60.3% of the 13% of the US population that claim to be black voted for Kerry. In '08, 65.2% of that 13% showed up to vote, and the went 98% for Obama.
13*.60*.88=6.85% of the eligible voting population was black that voted for Kerry
13*.65*.98=8.28% of the eligible voting population was black that voted for Obama
Really, single data points by definition are not statistically significant, but all we have to go on show somewhere in the range of 1.5% voting for Obama because he was black.
I don't think Warren Buffet is particularly interested in not paying taxes since he specifically campaigned to up his own tax rate, whatever other advantages he may or may not have over others, he's not insanely and cynically greedy,
He campaigned to raise his own taxes, while simultaneously paying lawyers to fight in court to keep from paying the taxes he already owed? While simultaneously ignoring the line on the tax forms asking for a voluntary contribution? If this adds up to you, you need math lessons.