No. In fact, moisture is a big problem in poorly insulated homes, since you get a large temperature difference between the walls and the air, leading to condensation and mold.
Relative humidity is the primary factor. Moisture is certainly a much bigger problem in a poorly insulated home than a home with little airflow.
That's probably because they didn't properly ventilate the place, or because the walls had thermal bridges.
The thermal bridge would have been the 2x6 studs -- so probably not the issue. The house was not ventilated at all beyond the natural convection currents of the fireplace (they had no central air circulation system), so the lack of air movement was the issue in the far rooms.
The trick to that is putting a vapor barrier only on the in side of the wall. That allows the out side to breathe (and vent excess moisture), preventing mold buildup inside the wall, and if the wall is sufficiently insulated, the inside will not get cold enough for condensation to form -- provided you don't have cool, moist air inside the rooms (which is a problem my grandparents faced in far corners of the house). Air circulation helps by replacing cool and moist air with warm and dryer air. Even internal circulation will help greatly, though getting rid of excess moisture by venting outside (through a vent or imperfect walls) is best.
The 64-bit alpha version of Flash is out, and it's very stable. I can't remember having a Flash related crash since I installed it (it's the most stable version I've ever used!). http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer10.html
That's what my grandparents did. And they never had a problem with the propane fridge. Only they managed on a couple car batteries and a small solar panel. And they had a small and large gas generator for when needed (the large one for power tools, the small one for occasional needs).
There is a big problem with going with a highly insulated home: moisture. Homes tend to be wet places, and without good airflow, moisture builds up in inconvenient places and mold can become a big problem. After a forest fire took out my grandparents' house, they rebuilt using R40 insulation in the walls and ceiling. Even in -20 C weather, they only needed a small fire (~20 liters of wood) once a day to heat the entire ~100 square meter home -- but ended up with moisture problems in the far bedrooms.
You've never driven on I-70, have you? It's two or three lanes wide, and so full of trucks it's at times hard to do the speed limit. There's a lot of highway congestion, even in the middle of nowhere.
It may be true, but definitely not for an unregulated monopoly (remember, we're still talking about libertarian economics). If the company happens to be in a monopoly position, natural or otherwise, make no mistake - they're going to squeeze as much from their customers as they can; most certainly far above and beyond any "competition overhead".
Well, if they charge more than any competition overhead, a competitor will emerge, barring interference (regulation). Without regulation, monopolies will only exist briefly if they aren't the optimal situation.
Sure, why not? In essence, all contracts sell your natural rights in exchange for something else: those include your time, your property, etc. There should be no reason why you could not contract yourself into slavery.
It's also tiring to support social parasites when you're trying to build your personal and local economy. If a person is truly deserving of pity, and not just unwilling to work, there will be enough charity. The problem is that many lazy individuals feel they are entitled to a high standard of living -- even if they don't put in the work for it. I would gladly contribute more to charity if the government didn't already rob half of what I make. Not only that, but I would feel good about my donations, knowing they went to a cause I personally felt worthy. The only entity that has the moral right to spend my earnings is me.
And the reality is that naturally occurring monopoly is usually best for the consumer. Often the additional overhead of competition would in fact give rise to higher prices. Note this is in regards to natural monopolies, that is, not those granted by the government (including unnatural rights like intellectual property). Monopolies are a natural result of reducing costs. If a monopoly situation were not in fact the most efficient mechanism for producing a product, competitors will emerge. A perfect example of that is file sharing versus the inflated prices charged by others (allowed by an unnatural intellectual property monopoly).
Freedom sure the heck is better! Submitting to a majority opinion is the road to Sovietism. Regulation is a tool of those who seek power. Regulation does nothing but create an uneven playing field -- it usually oppresses some for the benefit of others. That is why Libertarians are so against the State. The State, beyond its duties of enforcing contracts and private property, does nothing but uneven the playing field. It always favours one interest over another. The only way to avoid that is to have the least amount of government needed. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and that road goes by many names: Statism, Socialism, Fascism, Communism, etc.
Yes, but as soon as you begin to make money, the government has its hands all over your earnings. That's versus a corporation that is only taxed on its profits. Sure, the unproductive individual who makes nothing won't pay taxes -- but the one who tries to produce will be robbed. It's totally backwards. Society should only reward those who produce, and never let the unproductive get a free ride. If the unproductive are truly in need (and not just lazy), people will take pity upon them -- but it should be a volunteer activity, and not something coerced. At least, that's what a true believer in freedom will think.
Libertarians don't promote "freedom-only-for-the-rich". Libertarians support the freedom for everyone to become rich. Taxes like the income tax ensure those working for a living will have a difficult time getting ahead. It's the current regime of excessive taxation on the little guy that keeps the little guy down. Libertarians want to keep no one down.
Slashdot Mirror
What was that password? When you typed hunter2, all I saw was *******.
No. In fact, moisture is a big problem in poorly insulated homes, since you get a large temperature difference between the walls and the air, leading to condensation and mold.
Relative humidity is the primary factor. Moisture is certainly a much bigger problem in a poorly insulated home than a home with little airflow.
That's probably because they didn't properly ventilate the place, or because the walls had thermal bridges.
The thermal bridge would have been the 2x6 studs -- so probably not the issue. The house was not ventilated at all beyond the natural convection currents of the fireplace (they had no central air circulation system), so the lack of air movement was the issue in the far rooms.
The trick to that is putting a vapor barrier only on the in side of the wall. That allows the out side to breathe (and vent excess moisture), preventing mold buildup inside the wall, and if the wall is sufficiently insulated, the inside will not get cold enough for condensation to form -- provided you don't have cool, moist air inside the rooms (which is a problem my grandparents faced in far corners of the house). Air circulation helps by replacing cool and moist air with warm and dryer air. Even internal circulation will help greatly, though getting rid of excess moisture by venting outside (through a vent or imperfect walls) is best.
The 64-bit alpha version of Flash is out, and it's very stable. I can't remember having a Flash related crash since I installed it (it's the most stable version I've ever used!). http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer10.html
Dehumidifiers are very energy intensive. Having to run one would far outweigh the benefits of the additional insulation.
Yes, lets leverage our individual strengths and attack him in a multi-pronged, coordinated approach!
That's what my grandparents did. And they never had a problem with the propane fridge. Only they managed on a couple car batteries and a small solar panel. And they had a small and large gas generator for when needed (the large one for power tools, the small one for occasional needs).
There is a big problem with going with a highly insulated home: moisture. Homes tend to be wet places, and without good airflow, moisture builds up in inconvenient places and mold can become a big problem. After a forest fire took out my grandparents' house, they rebuilt using R40 insulation in the walls and ceiling. Even in -20 C weather, they only needed a small fire (~20 liters of wood) once a day to heat the entire ~100 square meter home -- but ended up with moisture problems in the far bedrooms.
You've never driven on I-70, have you? It's two or three lanes wide, and so full of trucks it's at times hard to do the speed limit. There's a lot of highway congestion, even in the middle of nowhere.
Oh come on. Air pumps aren't that expensive!
Well, if they charge more than any competition overhead, a competitor will emerge, barring interference (regulation). Without regulation, monopolies will only exist briefly if they aren't the optimal situation.
Or even better, why not just cut spending? And then taxes, too?
Sure, why not? In essence, all contracts sell your natural rights in exchange for something else: those include your time, your property, etc. There should be no reason why you could not contract yourself into slavery.
It's also tiring to support social parasites when you're trying to build your personal and local economy. If a person is truly deserving of pity, and not just unwilling to work, there will be enough charity. The problem is that many lazy individuals feel they are entitled to a high standard of living -- even if they don't put in the work for it. I would gladly contribute more to charity if the government didn't already rob half of what I make. Not only that, but I would feel good about my donations, knowing they went to a cause I personally felt worthy. The only entity that has the moral right to spend my earnings is me.
And the reality is that naturally occurring monopoly is usually best for the consumer. Often the additional overhead of competition would in fact give rise to higher prices. Note this is in regards to natural monopolies, that is, not those granted by the government (including unnatural rights like intellectual property). Monopolies are a natural result of reducing costs. If a monopoly situation were not in fact the most efficient mechanism for producing a product, competitors will emerge. A perfect example of that is file sharing versus the inflated prices charged by others (allowed by an unnatural intellectual property monopoly).
Freedom sure the heck is better! Submitting to a majority opinion is the road to Sovietism. Regulation is a tool of those who seek power. Regulation does nothing but create an uneven playing field -- it usually oppresses some for the benefit of others. That is why Libertarians are so against the State. The State, beyond its duties of enforcing contracts and private property, does nothing but uneven the playing field. It always favours one interest over another. The only way to avoid that is to have the least amount of government needed. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and that road goes by many names: Statism, Socialism, Fascism, Communism, etc.
Yes, but as soon as you begin to make money, the government has its hands all over your earnings. That's versus a corporation that is only taxed on its profits. Sure, the unproductive individual who makes nothing won't pay taxes -- but the one who tries to produce will be robbed. It's totally backwards. Society should only reward those who produce, and never let the unproductive get a free ride. If the unproductive are truly in need (and not just lazy), people will take pity upon them -- but it should be a volunteer activity, and not something coerced. At least, that's what a true believer in freedom will think.
Libertarians don't promote "freedom-only-for-the-rich". Libertarians support the freedom for everyone to become rich. Taxes like the income tax ensure those working for a living will have a difficult time getting ahead. It's the current regime of excessive taxation on the little guy that keeps the little guy down. Libertarians want to keep no one down.
But breaking pipes is so easy. All you have to do is kill one of the processes...
Oh yes you can!
And lead shoes. You'll get more radiation from concrete than a smoke detector.
But what about all the existing Serevers out there?
That's okay, just call Tank and he'll upload one! "Tank! I need a patch!"
*goes back to bending spoons*
But with no big rocks, it's just faking its flout.
You're not in danger, so don't pout.
I, for one, wonder how the hardcore Christians will react when they find out God created bisexual superconductivity. :-)