Tiny Homes and 3D Printed Homes – Cheaper and Better Than Traditional Construction

Traditional builders continue to reject and exclude both Tiny Homes (usually built by their owners) and 3D Printed Homes from within city tiny homelimits, citing all sorts of made-up CRAP, including FALSELY claiming the technology is “immature” and “won’t hold up over time” or “under severe tiny home - cottageweather conditions.”

I think Traditional Builders are DINOSAURS and it’s high time cities give their equity-robbing souls THE BOOT.

In FACT, 3D printed homes correct many of the problems associated with traditional homes, including avoidance of materials that warp and degrade over times. Unlike traditional homes, their shapes are highly resistant to wind, are far stronger than traditional construction, and far less expensive.

In FACT, Tiny Homes solve many of the problems encountered with mobile tiny home homes, most notably, cost and resale value, as a good Tiny Home costs, on average, about a third the cost of a mobile home, and they’re being resold for two to three times the cost of materials used in their construction.

Smaller? Yes. However, they do NOT waste space, as do traditional homes. They’re far cheaper, stronger, more unique, more comfortable, and generally a HUGE step in the right direction.

What do you think about Tiny Homes and 3D Printed Homes?

Discrimination vs the Free Exercise of Religion

I have absolutely no issue whatsoever serving anyone, regardless of their race, religion, creed, age, gender, orientation, or belief. That’s one issue, the one involving discrimination.
I absolutely will not ever, however, allow any individual to force me to do, make, say, create, write, photograph, or otherwise use my skills and resources in a manner that violates the free exercise of my religion. That’s the second issue, the one involving our First Amendment.
Two separate issues. Two separate responses. Dear Media, liberals, Democrats, and others: Please STOP intentionally confusing the two.
There is a vast difference between refusing to serve customers because of discrimination and refusing to use one’s skills and resources to promote, exalt, or endorse a message that violates one’s free practice of their religion.
Liberals, mudstream media, and the Democrats refuse to consider the fact these are separate issues because they’re trying to use one issue — discrimination — to force artisans of all types into promoting behavior which violates their religious convictions.
Our First Amendment, however, very specifically protects those religious convictions where it states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF.”
The free exercise of one’s religion usually requires its adherents to say, “No” to a great many things this world claims are OK and even glorifies. Indeed, our Ten Commandments contain 8 negatives and only 2 affirmations. “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” – James 1:27
Our First Amendment protects our right to freely exercise our religion. Our religion specifically requires us to keep ourselves from being polluted by the world. Being forced to incorporate messages or images into our creative works violates the very foundations of our religion and as such our government is expressly forbidden from forcing that upon us.
I have absolutely no issue whatsoever serving anyone, regardless of their race, religion, creed, age, gender, orientation, or belief. That’s one issue, the one involving discrimination.
I absolutely will not ever, however, allow any individual to force me to do, make, say, create, write, photograph, or otherwise use my skills and resources in a manner that violates the free exercise of my religion. That’s the second issue, the one involving our First Amendment.

Two separate issues. Two separate responses. Dear Media, liberals, Democrats, and others: Please STOP intentionally confusing the two.

And Courts, stop allowing these lawsuits.  They’re both frivolous and injurious to the entire system of jurisprudence.

U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Baker’s Right to Freely Exercise Religion

“In a 7-2 decision, the justices set aside a Colorado court ruling against the baker — while stopping short of deciding the broader issue of whether a business can refuse to serve gay and lesbian people.”
The issue here has absolutely nothing to do with refusing service to othersexuals. The maker said he’d bake them any other cake, and referred them to other bakers when they insisted on a gay wedding cake.
The issue at stake are the artisan’s First Amendment rights to freely practice their religion without being forced by government to violate their religious convictions: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF.” – First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Those who believe it’s OK to force people to violate their religious convictions should also agree it’s OK to force a Muslim to make pork sandwiches. What’s next?  Forcing Christian photographers to film gay consummation?  Absolutely not.  Professionals have always had the right to refuse to take on certain projects.
By the way, “7-2” is NOT a “narrow ruling.”
As a Christian, I have absolutely no problem whatsoever of serving anyone of any faith (or lack thereof), race, creed, gender, or sexual persuasion. As a Christian, however, I absolutely will NEVER make a sandwich, or a cake, that in any way exalts a behavior the Bible deems as sinful.
I’m very glad Jack Phillips got his day in court and his decision to honor God was upheld by the highest court in our land as being the right one.
“Justice Kennedy has held that tolerance is a two-way street, and Jack Phillips was not tolerated by the Civil Rights Commission of Colorado” “
Amen, and I sincerely hope this slap in the face serves as a wake-up call both to Colorado’s Civil Rights Commission as well as our State’s many wayward legislators.
It would behoove both liberal groups to remember “liberal justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan joined the conservative justices in the outcome.”
In closing, well, Justice Kennedy said it best: “When the justices heard arguments in December, Kennedy was plainly bothered by certain comments by a commission member. The commissioner seemed “neither tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips’ religious beliefs,” Kennedy said in December.”
Again, there’s nothing wrong with serving those who believe differently than you. There’s EVERYTHING wrong with allowing one group to dictate what and how an artisan or craftsman creates, particularly if it violates the artisan’s or craftsman’s right to freely practice their religion as protected by our First Amendment.


Date Assigned//Date Due//STATUS//Chore Title and Details//ET

20180602//20180602//INCOMPLETE//Work uniform in washer on Speed Wash.  Use 1/3 to 1/2 the normal level of soap.  No more.  Do it today (Sat) so your uniform can dry overnight.  Do not dry uniform in dryer.

20180524//20180525//INCOMPLETE//Insert speaker wires into black cord minder near large sliding glass door.  Ensure cord minder is flush left.  Ensure speaker wires go to right of A/C unit and a slightly taught//5 min

20180601//20180601//INCOMPLETE//Write weekly work schedule on calendar on fridge//2 min

20180602//20180602//INCOMPLETE//Scrub food off bean pans on stove and place into dishwasher, left bottom side//2 min

20180602//20180602//INCOMPLETE//Clear your own dishes from sink to dishwasher//1 min

20180602//20180602//INCOMPLETE//Place colas from box on table into bin in fridge//2 min


Soon to be populated!

The “97%” and why the IPCC, NOAA and other climate data is lacking

A friend of mine recently commented on how two years of data shows a decided cooling trend.  We must be careful to remember the difference between weather, which is what occurs on any given day, week, month, year, and even 11-year sunspot cycle, and climate, which is what occurs over the long haul.
Furthermore, statistics being what it is, one or two data points mean nothing. Furthermore, the answer to the question, “How many data points are enough?” depends both on what you’re trying to measure and the nature of the data itself.
If you know you’re measuring a straight line, two data points are sufficient to describe the entire line.
If you know you’re measuring a parabola, and you know the parabola’s orientation (axis), two points are again sufficient. If you don’t know its orientation, you’ll need three points.
If you’re conducting an exit poll at a precinct, measuring whether people are voted for candidate A or Candidate B, and no write-ins were allowed, you need to pick a Confidence Level, say, 99%, a Confidence Interval, say, +/- 3 points, and the population size, say, 35,000 people in the precinct. The answer is a sample size of 653. However, that’s not all, as you need to ensure the respondents are randomly selected throughout the voting period.  The largely liberal news organizations failed to take this into account when they launched their glowing pro-Hillary polls in the 2016 election.
When you’re talking about climate, however, the samples for each location need to include temperature, humidity, pressure, precipitation types and amounts, cloud types and cloud cover, and solar irradiance on the ground for at least 24 times each day, multiplied by every day for decades — at least thirty years worth, but preferably about 300+, then, multiply times thousands of locations around the world. You also need to measure solar irradiance in space i.e. the Sun’s output, and we’ve had access to that information only over the last 40 years. Finally, we need to correlate the irradiance with sunspot activity and discount the effect of sunspot variability, which can last as much as a century.
In all, there’s at least 16 pieces of variable information to be recorded at least hourly at each location, along with at least 12 pieces of constant information for each location.
For each location, that comes to 140,160 pieces of variable information each year, times tens of thousands of locations.
The best locations for this information are airports. According to the Airports Council International (ACI) World Airport Traffic Report, there are currently 17,678 commercial airports in the world. Most of these report their current conditions to one of several database repositories.
The major problem with the IPCC reports, however, is that they’re approach is rather simplistic. They often don’t even know what information to ask because they’re largely tied to the weather model, rather than a physics model. There are a number of relevant variables of which they either completely discount or have never even heard.
Local and surrounding terrain features, for example, significantly impact the readings. These “anomalous terrain features” can be mathematically described with via a centroid location, elongation factor, distance, and direction. Winds blowing over a mountain range 200 miles upwind during humid weather are likely to experience more cooling due to cloud formation than they are during dry weather. Similarly, weather stations located near a body of water are affected quite differently when the winds are onshore vs offshore. Even absolutely identical air masses located 500 miles distant will arrive in Kansas bearing quite different properties on a perfectly clear day throughout the entire U.S. depending on whether the air mass traveled up from low-lying Texas, down from the northern latitude Dakotas, or west over mountainous Colorado.
The same is true for ocean data. “Mean oceanic surface temperature,” while a good metric, is woefully void of the entire story, as oceans have basins and mountain ranges, too, and even slight shifts in currents can vary “ocean weather” significantly.

Then there’s the mudstream media’s “97% of climatologists agree” meme.  It’s more than a meme, however, as pro-AGP (anthropogenic climate change) forces are now creating videos demonstrating how 97% of climatologists agree…

…while ignoring the reality that their agreement originates from a single errant paper that was picked up by mudstream media itself and spread like wildfire.
New York Times bestselling author Alex Epstein, founder of the Center for Industrial Progress, reveals the origins of the “97%” figure and explains how to think more clearly about climate change in this YouTube video, below:

FYI, here’s the ear-tickeling but blitheringly idiot piece of PBS crap that started this conversation:

Assault Rifle vs Assault Weapon vs Semi-Automatic Firearm

Despite years of intensive effort on the part of firearms experts to train mainstream media on even the most basic firearms terminology, they still screw it up.  Constantly.  Just this morning, for example, The Chicago Tribune ran headlines which read:

Texas shooting suspect’s choice of guns complicates debate over assault rifles

“Assault rifles?”  Seriously?  I wasn’t aware there was any “debate over assault rifles.”  In fact, there’s no such debate because only two assault rifles have ever been used in a mass shooting in the U.S., both of which occurred last century.

An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.  Selective fire means the capability of a weapon to be adjusted to fire in semi-automatic, burst mode, and/or fully automatic firing mode.  “Under the NFA, it is illegal for any private civilian to own any fully automatic weapons manufactured after May 19, 1986” (Source).  This includes assault rifles, machine guns, and sub-machine guns.

Neither the AR-15 nor any of its many variants, is an “assault rifle.”

I think what the idiots at the Chicago Tribune were trying to say is, “assault weapon.”  The problem with that term, however, is that it’s not even real.  It’s a made-up term, lacking any concrete definition that isn’t already covered by widely-used industry-standard definitions.  In fact, the individual who made it up was trying to get around the fact that he could not knowing call the Colt AR-15 an “assault rifle” because the Colt AR-15 is not an assault rifle at all.  It’s a semi-automatic rifle, period.

Semi-automatic rifles are not “assault rifles.”  They’re certainly not “assault weapons,” as that term holds no standing whatsoever in the industry.

There is NO DIFFERENCE between a scary-looking semi-automatic rifle and friendly-looking semi-automatic rifle.  Both are just semi-automatic rifles.  The idea of banning so-called “assault weapons” is ludicrous as NO SUCH FIREARM EXISTS.


Piers Morgan’s Blitheringly Idiotic Gun Ban Drive

Piers Morgan has a passion for banning firearms.  His most frequently cited statistic is that the United Kingdom’s firearms murder rate dropped from thousands annually all the way down to the double digits (less than 100).  Sounds terrific, right?  Let’s ban all firearms now, right?

How Piers Morgan LIES
(click for full-size)

Well, not so fast.  You see, Piers Morgan lies.  He lies to you by using the term, “firearms murder rate,” “gun murders,” or “murders by firearms.”  He intentionally (possibly just stupidly) ignores murders which occur as the result of violent crime.  Speaking of which…

Piers Morgan fails to mention the fact that the UK’s violent crime rate more than tripled after they banned nearly all private ownership of firearms.  Apparently, a disarmed citizenry is far more susceptible to the other violent crimes of rape, robbery and aggravated assault.  Furthermore, since most murders are a result of violent crime at its worst, when their violent crime rate tripled, so did their non-firearms murder rate.

Put simply, the U.K. reduced their firearms murder rate but increased their non-firearms murder rate.

THE QUESTION:  Did the overall effect of the UK gun ban result in fewer murders overall or did the resulting tripling of the UK’s violent crime rate actually lead to more murders overall?  A related question involves how that would translate to gun bans here in the United States.  Would gun bans actually save lives, or would it cause violent crime — including murders related to violent crime, to rise?

To answer that question, I consulted with the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program.  UCR “has been the starting place for law enforcement executives, students of criminal justice, researchers, members of the media, and the public at large seeking information on crime in the nation. The program was conceived in 1929 by the International Association of Chiefs of Police to meet the need for reliable uniform crime statistics for the nation. In 1930, the FBI was tasked with collecting, publishing, and archiving those statistics” (Source).

Specifically, I examined their vaunted Table 1:  Crime in the United States by Volume and Rate per 100,000 inhabitants, 1997-2016.  This table provides both the raw numbers as well as the rate per 100,000 inhabitants for all violent crimes as well as the breakdown into murders, rape, robbery and aggravated assault.  It also provides the raw numbers and rates for non-violent property crimes, including burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft.

To be continued…