Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties
6,390 posts, read 9,687,420 times
Reputation: 2622
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flame Angel
You didn't get what I said at all. I concurr that the formal meaning of the term is to live not connected to the electrical grid, but also that the term is also being used as a "slang" so to speak for people who live largely disconnected from society.
I said nothing about the term "off-the-grid" and whether there is a permit or not. You came up with that yourself.
Location: San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties
6,390 posts, read 9,687,420 times
Reputation: 2622
Quote:
Having studied fire safety, fire prevention, fire prevention systems etc. formally at University as part of a MS in Safety, I am intimately familiar with their purposes and operation, as well as the various permutations including wet-pipe, dry-pipe, quick-acting valves etc.
I would use the term "intimately" to refer to the relationship a firefighter has with the afore mentioned, not school work.
Money is one, if the not the principle way, score is kept in society. Now, of course, there are exception, such as nuns, and priests etc., but basically people pay you money for providing value to society and don't pay you if you don't.
Really So the money that investment bankers made for what they have done to the world economy in recent years was paid in return for the value they provided society? While people who volunteer to aid the sick, disabled, and elderly, coach youth, plant trees, clean streams and beaches and neighborhoods, act as docents and care-takers at museums and parks, provide legal advice and services to persons of limited incomes, monitor elections, support public political processes and campaigns, -- and a very long list more -- don't get paid because what they do isn't valuable to society?
I suppose that the more a person earns, the more valuable they are in your world. Just the opposite is my general experienced observation. Those earning the most are often the most destructive. Think bankers and corporate industrialist executives vs. sanitation workers (try living without them) and forest-fire fighters ... etc. So much for "pay for value".
And life is about "keeping score"? I did not know that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flame Angel
However, I must assert that I am speaking of the real world where real people, work, live, grow intellectually and financially. Not a make believe world of Tee Pee dwellers thinking they are saving the planet, if not the solar system, or perhaps the Universe, by living "small".
Ah. So, you believe that people who live in alternative simplicities are not "real people" who work for a living? ... and have no "intellectual development"? ... have no "financial net worth"? It is not possible that you have no idea how many people there are out there with arts and sciences and other "intellectual" backgrounds who prefer simplistic, minimalist lifestyles to consumer wasteful lifestyles? I have multiple degrees, including graduate degrees in both performing arts and in health sciences ... I also have a very substantial net worth indeed ... earned net worth, not inherited ... and yet I choose to live as I do -- and know many many many others like me -- fascinating, intellectually capable, stimulating, contributing people. We are not "real people" -- and should live in our "free society" only under your definitions?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flame Angel
I told you once and I will tell you again, society can't go backwards - hell it can't just stand still. It, and people must ever be moving forward. It is known as progress, and if you get in its way, it steamrolls you.
Nobody has suggested that society should go "backwards", silly. Only you have suggested that is my meaning. It is precisely forward that I am suggesting. "Forward" is not raping and pillaging the resources we all -- and our children, and their children -- rely on. "Forward" is not living the spiritual emptiness of consumer titillation for the pure pleasure of distraction from the true depths and pleasures of life: love and health and spiritual appreciation of greater mysteries in which we all find ourselves.
Having studied fire safety, fire prevention, fire prevention systems etc. formally at University as part of a MS in Safety, I am intimately familiar with their purposes and operation, as well as the various permutations including wet-pipe, dry-pipe, quick-acting valves etc.
Sprinklers, put out fires, Most do so by having a head or heads in the vicinity of the fire, and activated by the heat of the fire, release water onto the fire from the overhead sprinkler heads. In most cases, a single head will put out a small fire completely. They are amazing things.
IF you are going to continue to install them (assuming you are being honest about your previous experience, you should come up to speed on them.
Oy Vey! Once again, r-e-a-d t-h-e b-u-i-l-d-i-n-g c-o-d-e-s
The design and performance standards for these systems in residential applications is based upon variables such as area of coverage and water flow all in effort to achieve a specified duration of time for occupant egress from the building. Once a fire reaches any of the allowed unprotected areas (assuming it didn't originate there) the fire will continue as long as there is fuel to burn, sometimes "to the ground".
Continuing to refer to your education as defense of an incorrect statement is amusing. As .highnlite inferred, there is a difference between professing to have studied or learned a subject and legitimately comprehending the true applicability of that knowledge. There are far too many people wandering the planet who don't seem to understand the difference. It would be best not to count yourself amongst them.
Oy Vey! Once again, r-e-a-d t-h-e b-u-i-l-d-i-n-g c-o-d-e-s
The design and performance standards for these systems in residential applications is based upon variables such as area of coverage and water flow all in effort to achieve a specified duration of time for occupant egress from the building. Once a fire reaches any of the allowed unprotected areas (assuming it didn't originate there) the fire will continue as long as there is fuel to burn, sometimes "to the ground".
Continuing to refer to your education as defense of an incorrect statement is amusing. As .highnlite inferred, there is a difference between professing to have studied or learned a subject and legitimately comprehending the true applicability of that knowledge. There are far too many people wandering the planet who don't seem to understand the difference. It would be best not to count yourself amongst them.
That's not the result my research on this, admittedly-newer class of sprinklers yielded. However, at this point, it is getting horribly boring. If you say the purpose of a fire sprinkler is not to put out a fire, well, so be it. I cited a industry organization, but you don't accept it. Okay with me. YOU win, I concede.
I did note that last time I purchased a house (in 2003), my insurance company, when arranging homeowners insurance, asked about sprinklers, and they were insuring the property.
Really So the money that investment bankers made for what they have done to the world economy in recent years was paid in return for the value they provided society? While people who volunteer to aid the sick, disabled, and elderly, coach youth, plant trees, clean streams and beaches and neighborhoods, act as docents and care-takers at museums and parks, provide legal advice and services to persons of limited incomes, monitor elections, support public political processes and campaigns, -- and a very long list more -- don't get paid because what they do isn't valuable to society?
I suppose that the more a person earns, the more valuable they are in your world. Just the opposite is my general experienced observation. Those earning the most are often the most destructive. Think bankers and corporate industrialist executives vs. sanitation workers (try living without them) and forest-fire fighters ... etc. So much for "pay for value".
And life is about "keeping score"? I did not know that.
Ah. So, you believe that people who live in alternative simplicities are not "real people" who work for a living? ... and have no "intellectual development"? ... have no "financial net worth"? It is not possible that you have no idea how many people there are out there with arts and sciences and other "intellectual" backgrounds who prefer simplistic, minimalist lifestyles to consumer wasteful lifestyles? I have multiple degrees, including graduate degrees in both performing arts and in health sciences ... I also have a very substantial net worth indeed ... earned net worth, not inherited ... and yet I choose to live as I do -- and know many many many others like me -- fascinating, intellectually capable, stimulating, contributing people. We are not "real people" -- and should live in our "free society" only under your definitions?
Nobody has suggested that society should go "backwards", silly. Only you have suggested that is my meaning. It is precisely forward that I am suggesting. "Forward" is not raping and pillaging the resources we all -- and our children, and their children -- rely on. "Forward" is not living the spiritual emptiness of consumer titillation for the pure pleasure of distraction from the true depths and pleasures of life: love and health and spiritual appreciation of greater mysteries in which we all find ourselves.
I think if you ask people, 99% or more would view living in a Tee Pee as going backwards. Ditto, living in a cave or a yurt, or a tent.
If you see that as moving "forward", good for you.
However, using phrases like "raping and pillage the resources...", in context of ordinary home building, you pretty much label yourself as a kook, and in that, I agree with you.
Good post. Excellent summation. It simply is not possible for a person of limited or modest means to rise to greater and greater financial demands. The result is to re-create a tacit culture of serfdom.
As has been mentioned earlier in this thread, the primary purpose of residential fire sprinklers is to preserve life, not property. The real question, which has been missed so far, is not whether sprinklers are a good idea, but whether they should be legally mandated.
It could be argued that requiring each home to have a working defibrillator would save more lives overall than sprinklers would. Where you gonna draw the line?
As has been mentioned earlier in this thread, the primary purpose of residential fire sprinklers is to preserve life, not property. The real question, which has been missed so far, is not whether sprinklers are a good idea, but whether they should be legally mandated.
It could be argued that requiring each home to have a working defibrillator would save more lives overall than sprinklers would. Where you gonna draw the line?
You draw the line in the people you elect to public office - people were elected and laws passed. To just ignore them doesn't seem to be a good idea - which laws should we abide by and which should we ignore.
I stated earlier - if one doesn't like the laws - elect representatives that will change them.
As has been mentioned earlier in this thread, the primary purpose of residential fire sprinklers is to preserve life, not property. The real question, which has been missed so far, is not whether sprinklers are a good idea, but whether they should be legally mandated.
It could be argued that requiring each home to have a working defibrillator would save more lives overall than sprinklers would. Where you gonna draw the line?
Yes, that is exactly the point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whtviper1
You draw the line in the people you elect to public office - people were elected and laws passed. To just ignore them doesn't seem to be a good idea - which laws should we abide by and which should we ignore.
I stated earlier - if one doesn't like the laws - elect representatives that will change them.
I doubt that voters elected officials to mandate ever increasing cost intrusions and restrictions of free choice on the public. The electorate is obviously interested in having their officials act in the best interests of public safety -- within bounds of reasonableness and affordability. Many many laws are proposed and enacted by a process of industry lobbying and pork-barrel favor-broking -- as opposed to by citizen mandate. Fire sprinkler code smacks of industry promotion. That's the difference.
Elect representatives that will change them? -- after they are in place? As if the unassembled, unaffiliated, and unorganized public has nothing they'd rather do than get together and review every new piece of legislation and commit their free time and cash donations to lobbying against monied interests to reverse laws. Right. Not.
I think if you ask people, 99% or more would view living in a Tee Pee as going backwards. Ditto, living in a cave or a yurt, or a tent.
You have a habit of speciousness, don't you? Simplistic lifestyles, minimalist living, are / is not limited to tee-pee's, caves, yurts, or tents ... and I never said those were a requirement of belonging to a class of citizens concerned to have a light-as-possible footprint on the environment and as simplistic a lifestyle as possible either. I have included those options because, for a sizable number of free citizens, those are appealing choices. You choose to speciously seize on them in an attempt to ridicule me, and persons like me, because you assume others generally agree with your tastes -- or lack thereof -- and that you speak for enlightened mankind. You don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flame Angel
If you see that as moving "forward", good for you.
I see moving forward as being intelligent enough and personally committed and disciplined enough to know when we are engaging in self-destructive paths and patterns that need to be re-examined in light of history and science both. Apparently, you do not fall into such category of thinking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flame Angel
However, using phrases like "raping and pillage the resources...", in context of ordinary home building, you pretty much label yourself as a kook, and in that, I agree with you.
I see: it is "kooky" to recognize the toxic nature of where our traditions have brought us? You might consider reading research on how many modern building mandates that have been brought to code requirements are having to be overturned because our new houses are rotting and causing illnesses -- particularly respiratory distress -- because they (the houses) literally can't breathe. You might also consider reading the research analysis widely available on how much of the earth's resources are consumed by Americans relative to other peoples around the globe -- and the projections for availability of those resources and energies at the present rates of consumption by the U.S. alone -- and at the rate of projected demand by the developing world desirous to follow the American path as marketed by -- well, people like you.
But then, obviously, you don't care regardless, so why bother reading and learning? Right?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So the money that investment bankers made for what they have done to the world economy in recent years was paid in return for the value they provided society? While people who volunteer to aid the sick, disabled, and elderly, coach youth, plant trees, clean streams and beaches and neighborhoods, act as docents and care-takers at museums and parks, provide legal advice and services to persons of limited incomes, monitor elections, support public political processes and campaigns, -- and a very long list more -- don't get paid because what they do isn't valuable to society?
