[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

Wood, in a stove, with peltier rigs on the pipe, minus all the work to chop it, maxes out at sorta efficient.

Smells nice, though.

It's the simplicity and aesthetics that we love, and it's rather clean as long as you keep up with maintenance.

[sek929]

That's a shit-ton of splitting then, but 10k sq/ft with wood-heat would certainly consume it. Do you get the logs-pre seasoned or something? Because, as I'm sure you know, burning freshy-split wood is hardly ideal.

For anyone curious that's ~1,920 cu/ft of wood.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

New woodstoves burn pretty damn efficient (80%+) from what I have been told.

That is close to fossil fuel territory. And it's renewable of course.

That's not bad, but NG is close to 100%, and is maintenance free (relatively speaking).

To be clear again though, fire... GOOD!

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Yes, nothing beats the appeal of a wood fire.

I have open fireplaces.....the efficiency is something like negative 97%

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by sek929 

That's a shit-ton of splitting then, but 10k sq/ft with wood-heat would certainly consume it. Do you get the logs-pre seasoned or something? Because, as I'm sure you know, burning freshy-split wood is hardly ideal.

For anyone curious that's ~1,920 cu/ft of wood.

We felled the trees earlier this year and stacked the logs, we also use fireplaces a great deal, and you know how much those can suck for efficiency. The one in the diningroom (aka. the hall) is large enough for 6 stout guys to stand in, which is great for effect but horrible in terms of practicality.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by sek929 

For anyone curious that's ~1,920 cu/ft of wood.

...or, using the average weight of a cord, 30 tons of split wood....30. I can only imagine Shaddim was originally talking about what is known as 'stove cords' which is a much smaller amount of wood (about 4 times less) or is indeed Grizzly Adams himself. If either is the case I apologize for jumping on him. I take wood very seriously as you can tell.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by sek929 

...or, using the average weight of a cord, 30 tons of split wood....30. I can only imagine Shaddim was originally talking about what is known as 'stove cords' which is a much smaller amount of wood (about 4 times less) or is indeed Grizzly Adams himself. If either is the case I apologize for jumping on him. I take wood very seriously as you can tell.

I hear morning wood is your favorite.

[sek929]

I call it the "Log-Splitter"

[Shaddim]

Okay, going by official figures, it's probably ~12 "proper" cords. The stacks aren't packed as tightly as they could be, to help keep the peace.

[sek929]

That's still over 20 tons of wood, so each guy split 5 tons of wood? You guys are beasts.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

We were talking about how lawsuits would still exist, pretty much all of us agreed on that, then you jumped in and started yelling about it.

What yelling? Are you mistaking acronym caps for shouty caps?

I'm saying insurance companies will treat self-drivers like skydivers, deem the activity is too risky to insure, or make it so expensive that you need to be a multi-millionaire (and self-insured) to do it. That's already happening with plane pilots, and I don't even want to go into helo insurance, it's outrageous.

I don't agree* but even if your prediction is right, then that would only mean that your hobby is having to pay the true costs that it creates. Why shouldn't it have to do that?

*the average manually-driven car will be more safe after the advent of self-driving cars than the average manually-driven car today. When you remove the worst offenders from the population, the average becomes less negative.

I can't see the DoT getting on board with that.

Not until after self-driving technology proves itself reliable. Add to that the roads as a whole will be less chaotic if self-driving cars catch on. The factors that make game integration laughable today are all caused by human drivers, and could ultimately become a thing of the past.

and they don't work very well, people need to pay attention to where they're going.

They (the muscles and their automation to abstract "push here pull there" into "walk a line") work exquisitely well, as evidenced by the fact that you can't even conceive of a failure at that low a level and so resorted to higher level route planning.

The engine doesn't just disappear, however, you simply put more oil in it.

Ok, and the facebook doesn't just disappear when the power goes out either, you simply put more power in it

"Can"? You have a much more rosy view on human behavior and what most do when they have idle time. I mostly see snacking, texting, and drone-like TV-watching, and rising obesity rates back me up.

Yes, "can." "Can" is a prerequisite for caring about sloth in the first place. If "can" isn't the limiting factor, then the person shouldn't even be on your radar. You can't fix a person who doesn't want to be fixed.

For all the world it sounds like you're inferring that because a new way of doing something is discovered, the old methods should be discarded. That's not what you're saying is it?

That... was precisely your thesis. The dawn of self-driving cars threatens your passion for living in what is increasingly becoming the past. Obviously I must reference this in order to answer it, and that's what I was doing.

No, it's the "stop living like trapped rats and find a way of life that makes you happier" argument. Modern cities, for the most part, aren't fit for human habitation, at least not without loads of antidepressants and anger management classes.

Haha! So when you said "find what makes you happier," you really meant "find what makes me happier"

Aren't you being just a tad defensive (about how city slickers tend to characterize TN)?

I was exclusively eating "cake" before I had a lot of bread, it was a conscious choice.

Yeah. That's the "let them eat cake" argument in a nutshell. Marie Antoinette was eating cake before she had any bread too, and I'm sure she didn't regret that for a moment either. She probably took measures to have a short commute too. It's not just for the fitness crowd you know, even car-driving flesh-blobs enjoy a short commute, and people with long commutes don't do that by choice. Either it's the only job they can get, or it's the only housing they can afford (or their spouse fits that description). Yes, "all" it takes to find a short commute is to quit your job and move to a different state. Isn't it pretty out of touch to imply this a low hurdle?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

What yelling? Are you mistaking acronym caps for shouty caps?

You were getting kind of punchy there.

I don't agree* but even if your prediction is right, then that would only mean that your hobby is having to pay the true costs that it creates. Why shouldn't it have to do that?

Why would it be dramatically more expensive than it is today? Why did pilot premiums increase dramatically after 9/11, despite there being fewer incidents involving private pilots and better training programs? Because the insurance companies wanted to make more money then played off the fear of planes flying into every building to justify it.

Not until after self-driving technology proves itself reliable. Add to that the roads as a whole will be less chaotic if self-driving cars catch on. The factors that make game integration laughable today are all caused by human drivers, and could ultimately become a thing of the past.

Still don't see it happening.

They (the muscles and their automation to abstract "push here pull there" into "walk a line") work exquisitely well, as evidenced by the fact that you can't even conceive of a failure at that low a level and so resorted to higher level route planning.

I'll remember that next time I see someone tripping over their own feet while texting, again.

Ok, and the facebook doesn't just disappear when the power goes out either, you simply put more power in it

Act like I wasn't talking about the server side, but yeah, there have been places without power for weeks after disasters. Data is temporary, even fragile, many factors have to be met for it to even maintain integrity, sculpture doesn't cease to be simply because you turn off the power. Even the best backup systems are finite, and even the most redundant systems in the world can fail if you cut the data backbone (as AT&T's customers found out just 2 years ago).

Yes, "can." "Can" is a prerequisite for caring about sloth in the first place. If "can" isn't the limiting factor, then the person shouldn't even be on your radar. You can't fix a person who doesn't want to be fixed.

I'm talking about the vast majority of people in society, again I point at the rising obesity rates. What's the point of doing any exercise, for that matter? People will soon be able to get as fat as they want and modern medicine will keep them alive for 80+ years. Quality of life isn't a consideration, because few people understand what quality is. "Happiness" has become hyper stimulation, when you want it, as you want it. Even today, applying effort to achieve a gratifying result is pointless in the face of bliss on tap. Ever looked at search engine results after a big, new game comes out? The first thing people do is look up cheat codes and game guides, to lessen the challenge of doing something as menial and fruitless as figuring out a damned video game. It's no wonder the average person now has the attention span of a goldfish.

That... was precisely your thesis. The dawn of self-driving cars threatens your passion for living in what is increasingly becoming the past. Obviously I must reference this in order to answer it, and that's what I was doing.

Newer != better, it just means it came out later. Is margarine better than butter? Tech is great, I buy more of it than anyone else I know, but I won't become its slave, either. When devices do everything for people, then people have no reason to exist, and when there's no reason there'll be no desire, either.

Haha! So when you said "find what makes you happier," you really meant "find what makes me happier"

An ever-decreasing number of people understand the concept of "happy", they know what pleasure is, but that's not the same thing. They're "happy" for short periods of time while they're being stimulated, then they're "sad", and "sad" is the new baseline, because that's when they aren't getting their pleasure fix. Happy, when you have it, is a consistent state of being, something that ebbs and flows but never totally slips away. You can have monumentally bad days but still be happy, and the way to do that is to practice self-reliance, compassion, and temperance.

You know what makes methamphetamine so dangerous? It's not the potential for overdose, though that's deadly too, it's the fact that it makes a person's ability to create the chemicals that induce pleasure obsolete. After a while that person plateaus at such a high level that nothing short of meth will ever make them feel anything, and that never goes away, those neural pathways become set. It can happen even without the drug, we call those people adrenaline junkies. At what point do we overstimulate every eager impulse and create an entire race of drones, directly plugged into any device that can make them feel? There's no ecstasy without agony and no enjoyment of leisure without hard work, at what point does everything become so easy that humans value nothing, including themselves?

Aren't you being just a tad defensive (about how city slickers tend to characterize TN)?

I lived in LA, they can have it.

Yeah. That's the "let them eat cake" argument in a nutshell. Marie Antoinette was eating cake before she had any bread too, and I'm sure she didn't regret that for a moment either. She probably took measures to have a short commute too. It's not just for the fitness crowd you know, even car-driving flesh-blobs enjoy a short commute, and people with long commutes don't do that by choice. Either it's the only job they can get, or it's the only housing they can afford (or their spouse fits that description). Yes, "all" it takes to find a short commute is to quit your job and move to a different state. Isn't it pretty out of touch to imply this a low hurdle?

You're misunderstanding, or I was, the "cake" and "bread" nonsense is clouding the issue, and if you believe I'm anything like Marie Antoinette then you have a very poor knowledge of history. There is choice, there's always choice. People do what they do because they get stuck in a rut. They believe that they must do those things, when the reality is that they don't. I'm not the one out of touch, most of society isn't even aware of what they need, much less how to get it. While I have no doubt autonomous cars won't get lost, most of humanity will be, if they aren't already.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by sek929 

That's still over 20 tons of wood, so each guy split 5 tons of wood? You guys are beasts.

Umm... thanks??

[andi*pandi]

I remember the winter we put in 14 cord of wood. It took up lots of weekends, and that was with borrowing a splitter. Of course I was ~10, not much help except for stacking.

[subego]

Have to say, I'm imagining Shaddim's daughter dragging her blankie in one hand and an axe in the other.

[Shaddim]

You mean "baby"? It isn't a blanket, it's a pillow in the shape of a cat. She can handle a spoon, but an axe is out of her league.

[subego]

Which is what makes it hilarious.

[subego]

Admittedly, cat pillows are funnier than blankies.

Spoons are also funny.

[osiris]

We need more abominable vehicles on the road. Keeps the population in check.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Why would it be dramatically more expensive than it is today? Why did pilot premiums increase dramatically after 9/11, despite there being fewer incidents involving private pilots and better training programs? Because the insurance companies wanted to make more money then played off the fear of planes flying into every building to justify it.

Or, because now the risk profile includes intentional crashes, and insurers are exposed to a far greater cost per incident than (they knew about) before 9/11.

I'll remember that next time I see someone tripping over their own feet while texting, again.

Keep us updated. People tend to trip over obstacles, not themselves, highlighting the near-perfect automation of the non-obstacle form.

Act like I wasn't talking about the server side, but yeah, there have been places without power for weeks after disasters. Data is temporary, even fragile, many factors have to be met for it to even maintain integrity, sculpture doesn't cease to be simply because you turn off the power. Even the best backup systems are finite, and even the most redundant systems in the world can fail if you cut the data backbone (as AT&T's customers found out just 2 years ago).

A delightful double-standard. A multi-year electricity uptime is "temporary" but a multi-week electricity downtime isn't "temporary?" Oil has had multi-week downtimes too (embargoes, spills, hurricanes, etc). Data corrodes over time without curation, but so do engines, and sculptures, and paintings. Art that isn't curated ends up like the Sphinx, worn and broken, but you're probably content to be glass-half-full for partially corroded art (and what about partially corroded engines, btw?), and glass-half-empty for partially corroded data.

I'm talking about the vast majority of people in society, again I point at the rising obesity rates. What's the point of doing any exercise, for that matter? People will soon be able to get as fat as they want and modern medicine will keep them alive for 80+ years. Quality of life isn't a consideration, because few people understand what quality is.

Your double-standard has you focusing on the "vast majority" when it's time to criticize them, but ignoring it when you want to criticize an advancement that would unquestioningly improve their quality of life and safety.

"Happiness" has become hyper stimulation, when you want it, as you want it. Even today, applying effort to achieve a gratifying result is pointless in the face of bliss on tap. Ever looked at search engine results after a big, new game comes out? The first thing people do is look up cheat codes and game guides, to lessen the challenge of doing something as menial and fruitless as figuring out a damned video game. It's no wonder the average person now has the attention span of a goldfish.

This is a fixable problem, but only for those who take the red pill (it has to be their choice, not yours or mine). A singular activity provides contentment when chosen, and misery when forced. True happiness is more about free will and self-determination than it is about the actual activity. The only logical course is to make it available for anyone who chooses, and therefore to only measure success and failure within the context of those who try. Any unhappiness that a person chooses for themselves is not our problem.

Newer != better, it just means it came out later. Is margarine better than butter?

I didn't want this to become a tangent, but I prefer margarine over butter because it's healthier, more spreadable (fridge friendly), and cheaper. Like skim milk, it now tastes better to me than the grossly creamy ancestral form.

Tech is great, I buy more of it than anyone else I know, but I won't become its slave, either.

Begging the question. Why would using a self-driving car make you dependent on it? Using a microwave didn't make you dependent. Nor a sewing machine, heat pump, MacBook, or horseless carriage. You still have no trouble accessing the older technologies that these have superseded. Why are you so adamant that self-driving cars would be different from these other examples you raised?

When devices do everything for people, then people have no reason to exist, and when there's no reason there'll be no desire, either.

Your own examples contradict your reasoning that a human's "reason to exist" is to be more efficient than machines at performing menial labor. There is absolutely no need for you to split your own wood, there are a dozen ways that this could be done more efficiently without you. By doing it you add nothing to the process. That doesn't mean you have "no reason to exist;" your reason to exist is to split the wood anyway because it pleases you. That reason is sufficient, and has always been the reason people have existed. Alleviating the need to steer and brake will change nothing about any human's "reason to exist."

An ever-decreasing number of people understand the concept of "happy", they know what pleasure is, but that's not the same thing. They're "happy" for short periods of time while they're being stimulated, then they're "sad", and "sad" is the new baseline, because that's when they aren't getting their pleasure fix. Happy, when you have it, is a consistent state of being, something that ebbs and flows but never totally slips away. You can have monumentally bad days but still be happy, and the way to do that is to practice self-reliance, compassion, and temperance.

I don't think they're ever-decreasing, I think that the unhappy ones are just getting more visible (because they're more entertaining to watch, from the outside). The same way bad news isn't more common than 30 years ago, it's just more publicized. "Local man is happy" doesn't make the news.

I lived in LA, they can have it.

Try Portland

You're misunderstanding, or I was, the "cake" and "bread" nonsense is clouding the issue, and if you believe I'm anything like Marie Antoinette then you have a very poor knowledge of history. There is choice, there's always choice. People do what they do because they get stuck in a rut. They believe that they must do those things, when the reality is that they don't. I'm not the one out of touch, most of society isn't even aware of what they need, much less how to get it. While I have no doubt autonomous cars won't get lost, most of humanity will be, if they aren't already.

When you have dependents, there isn't "always a choice," simply because that choice isn't one person's to make for his/her dependents anymore. I'm surprised that I (with no dependents) have to tell you (with a daughter) this.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Or, because now the risk profile includes intentional crashes, and insurers are exposed to a far greater cost per incident than (they knew about) before 9/11.

That wasn't the first time that a plane has flown into a building.

Keep us updated. People tend to trip over obstacles, not themselves, highlighting the near-perfect automation of the non-obstacle form.

I will. Since you're perfect in that regard, I can imagine how you'd not know what that's like.

A delightful double-standard. A multi-year electricity uptime is "temporary" but a multi-week electricity downtime isn't "temporary?" Oil has had multi-week downtimes too (embargoes, spills, hurricanes, etc). Data corrodes over time without curation, but so do engines, and sculptures, and paintings. Art that isn't curated ends up like the Sphinx, worn and broken, but you're probably content to be glass-half-full for partially corroded art (and what about partially corroded engines, btw?), and glass-half-empty for partially corroded data.

The double-standard you believe you're seeing isn't real, just like things on the internet aren't "real". Like other people I've encountered lately, you're starting to equate images to substance, and that's not healthy. No, you aren't actually planting crops in Farmville, find something productive to do.

Your double-standard has you focusing on the "vast majority" when it's time to criticize them, but ignoring it when you want to criticize an advancement that would unquestioningly improve their quality of life and safety.

No, I'm criticizing humanity in general, I seldom agree with any of the human-like bots walking around these days. It's like watching all of society emotionally and socially devolve into children.

This is a fixable problem, but only for those who take the red pill (it has to be their choice, not yours or mine). A singular activity provides contentment when chosen, and misery when forced. True happiness is more about free will and self-determination than it is about the actual activity. The only logical course is to make it available for anyone who chooses, and therefore to only measure success and failure within the context of those who try. Any unhappiness that a person chooses for themselves is not our problem.

You're acting like I'm talking about restriction, when I'm most assuredly not. What I'm doing is isolating the problem, not proposing some drastic plan to cure it. When a near-civilization ending disaster occurs (not if), and we're due for several, much of this will work itself out. However, I feel compassionate and would like to see as many survive as possible, for their own sakes as well as humanity's, to maintain cultural and genetic diversity.

I didn't want this to become a tangent, but I prefer margarine over butter because it's healthier, more spreadable (fridge friendly), and cheaper. Like skim milk, it now tastes better to me than the grossly creamy ancestral form.

That doesn't really surprise me. You know that margarine was one of the first society-wide experiments in game theory, right? They realized there wasn't going to be enough butter to go around, so they devised a substitute that was easier to produce and didn't require limited resources. In the face of the Baby Boom, the government needed to find ways to limit milk consumption by adults so that more would be available for babies. However, in the quantities we consume, the health "benefits" of oleo are non-existent. In fact, in light of our society-wide calcium deficiency, it's safe to assume we've been too successful villainizing dairy.

Begging the question. Why would using a self-driving car make you dependent on it? Using a microwave didn't make you dependent. Nor a sewing machine, heat pump, MacBook, or horseless carriage. You still have no trouble accessing the older technologies that these have superseded. Why are you so adamant that self-driving cars would be different from these other examples you raised?

If they aren't required to learn how to drive, most humans won't, or their skills will erode to an even worse level. We're one continent-wide disaster away from all of our computerized helpers and minders simply ceasing to operate. Maintaining a degree of self-reliance is the wise choice. Also, it can be enriching to learn to interact with your environment on a physical level, but we aren't even offering that option to the young, at an early age we're simply handing them a smartphone and ignoring other possible needs.

Your own examples contradict your reasoning that a human's "reason to exist" is to be more efficient than machines at performing menial labor. There is absolutely no need for you to split your own wood, there are a dozen ways that this could be done more efficiently without you. By doing it you add nothing to the process. That doesn't mean you have "no reason to exist;" your reason to exist is to split the wood anyway because it pleases you. That reason is sufficient, and has always been the reason people have existed. Alleviating the need to steer and brake will change nothing about any human's "reason to exist."

It's good exercise (splitting wood) and in my case it's a social exercise as well, a good time to meet up with friends and neighbors, plus there's a physical rhythm to it that's both relaxing and stimulating. Again, I don't believe you see the whole picture, like my nephew. When he comes over, if left to his own devices, he'll plant himself in front of a TV and play video games all day, constantly switching between games. In many ways, that's not healthy. So it's my job to make sure he learns some non-technologically focused skills. It's a bit of a paradox, he's much happier when he gets out and works with his hands, but getting him to start is often like pulling teeth.

I don't think they're ever-decreasing, I think that the unhappy ones are just getting more visible (because they're more entertaining to watch, from the outside). The same way bad news isn't more common than 30 years ago, it's just more publicized. "Local man is happy" doesn't make the news.

I can't see how you aren't noticing it, possibly it's due to what I said, most humans don't know the difference between happiness and pleasurable stimulation anymore. Attention spans are shorter than they've ever been and the ability to focus on individual tasks is becoming a lost art. Satisfaction is at an all time high while contentment is nearly impossible to find (those should be reversed, of course). People "settle" instead of working towards individual improvement, the undeniable trend is towards living on autopilot with as few physical and emotional demands as possible... as I said, becoming drones.

Try Portland

Too rainy.

When you have dependents, there isn't "always a choice," simply because that choice isn't one person's to make for his/her dependents anymore. I'm surprised that I (with no dependents) have to tell you (with a daughter) this.

That's more of an excuse, not a reason. Kids are extremely resilient, and in the long run, finding a place where you and they can be happier is a net gain. Again, in recent times people have become living examples of Newton's first law, when at rest they tend to stay there. They'd rather live with the less desirable status quo. I suppose it's a good thing American settlers didn't feel that way (unless you look at it from the Native American PoV).