Bitcoin Forum

It is the worst thing imaginable.

Agree, it's like the whole purpose of this devices is to be as loud an annoying as possible.

I love (hate) my neighbour who starts blowing leave from one corner of his yard to another.

There is nothing better than to wake up on a Saturday morning and the first thought in your mind is

"Fuck you asshole! Seriously go and fuck yourself!"  ;)

The fact that there is no national outrage against this device is telling.

When the brain doesn't work, lots of unnecessary, totally unproductive noise is no problem.

What do you mean "like"? The manufacturers do deliberately design these machines to be as loud as possible. They once tried putting mufflers on them, but nobody would buy them because they thought the quieter motors were less powerful. They honestly think the loud ones are better. So that's what the manufacturers make. Which proves that capitalism only works when the consumers aren't complete morons. ::)

They're loud. They stink like gasoline fumes. They create dust (lots of it). They're just plain wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toC4lQ2eQy4

Tsk... sound is energy too, and noise is energy lost. Such a shame.

Nah, Capitalism works in the absence of belief. Unlike other economic systems.

Besides, if they didn't make all that noise, you might have to hear the moron behind the trigger.

No, just a local outrage.  They've been illegal in Berkeley since 1982 (http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/Council_5/Elected_Officials_and_Collections/District_5_News_December_2010.aspx#leafblowers).

I've spent a lot of time in Berkeley. Kinda proves my point about morons...

I believe early Sunday morning is the best time to test start the snow blower.

The fact that these idiotic things continue to exist is perplexing. They are heavy, loud, stinky, noisy. They scatter dust, dry shit, and mold spores into the air. They are inefficient.  They are retarded. A broom does the job, is cheaper, lighter, quiter, smells nicer, and can be used for flying, too.

So can leaf blowers.

Well, hovering.

Here is a picture I took two years ago, proving that my frustration with leaf blowers is at least that old:

https://i.imgur.com/E58a71N.jpg

Note the mandatory hearing and breathing protection, and dust and dried shit being stirred up in the air, along with exhaust from the stinky, inefficient two-stroke engine.

http://www.alliednetservices.com/clipart/sm_rcrumb05.jpg

Sounds like we need a MMLBM to Washington.

I had an encounter this morning. A short Mexican guy started blowing the leaves and the dust in my direction.

I was about to start screaming at him: 'Get the fuck away from me you moron!'. Then I realized it wouldn't be politically correct.

I moved to the left corner of the small area and he gave me finger up as he blew 2-3 leaves on the right side.

Then he motioned me to get to the other side and I obliged.

He blew a few more leaves on the left side and a lot of dust in my face, gave me one more finger up like :"You cool gringo" and left me coughing.

It was even worse than having ' conversation' with myrkul.

What a fucked up country we live in.

I wonder if that Mexican was related to the one I saw at McDonald's the other day, constantly scratching his balls with plastic gloves protecting his hands while he prepared my sandwich.

Fucked up, yes, but reading your story makes me wonder which of you two was more responsible for fucking it up a little bit more on that day...

They are actually excellent when used as intended (To blow leafs).

The problems arise when they are used for other stuff.

The problems arise when you blow leaves around with leaf blowers. As I already pointed out, they are a noisy, polluting, inefficient technology. You cannot use them to blow leaves without also blowing all sorts of shit with them. A rake does the job, and is a much more appropriate technology for the task of moving leaves around.

I tried one in a park with lots of leafs, and made pretty neat rows that were then removed. There were very little "other stuff" being blown together with the leaves. most twigs and a few resilient leaves had to be raked away.

We were about 5-6 persons, and the leaf-blower more than halved the time it would otherwise have taken to remove the leafs.

So what if it halved the time?

You can halve the time of grocery shopping by careening around the store with your shopping cart pushing people aside everywhere you go. You can halve the time of cooking by ignoring some ingredients and not cleaning up after yourself.

In other words, certain things need to be done right. And doing things right takes more time. I guess the reality of the situation is that gardening and cleanup actually costs more because the proper way takes more time. But that's just the way it is, because halving the time with a leaf blower isn't really an acceptable way to do the job. Plain and simple.

lol@"Proper". There is nothing improper about blowing around a ton of leaves into piles in a big ass yard that is not directly connected to and thus not annoying any neighbors. What should be said here and hasn't so far is that there is right tool for every job, and a leaf blower is an industrial solution being abused as a consumer one. To hear people complaining about it in general (instead of mentioning that there are uses for it and that normal everyday raking isn't one of them) makes me think they'd also complain about jet engines.

"Flying should be done slowly, the right way. Jets are loud and blow birds around."

Also, there is the externalized cost with leaf blowers (others are forced to suffer so you get the job done your way), and hidden/forgotten costs (gas, maintenance, health).

Ummm, no.

It's not the consumers who are the problem. It's the landscaping and gardening crews who use them regularly in residential areas, often condo and apartment complexes.

But without the gas powered leaf blower we couldn't have diy hovercrafts http://blog.makezine.com/2011/06/24/some-assembly-required-leaf-blower-hovercraft/

and everybody likes hovercrafts

You can even more than halve the time of transporting the goods to the shop by using a large truck. But I guess Wheelbarrows are the correct way.

Not to mention those pesky digger, we have shovels for a reason.

There is some sound, but in my situation i don't think it was that much worse than the sound of the traffic.

Maintenance and gas was more than paid for in saved labour, and healthwise it was probably better to use 3-4 hrs and get away before rush hour, than staying for 7-8 hrs beside a road with constant traffic.

I guess it doesn't really matter where it's used, so long as the task at hand requires it (which is doubtful at a random condo/apartment but who am I to judge).

Exactly :-)

It has to be a fairly large and open space with a fair amount of leafs. In a small area or where there is not that much leafs, it's probably better to use rakes.

True to your icon. Always looking for ways of portraying morons as victims and trying to muddy the waters.

Did you see anyone complaining about large trucks here? Because I didn't.

I think large trucks are too loud. Now there is one.
It's not as hard to do a little complaining as one might think.

We are talking about utility vs negative impact here, and it's only natural to bring in other examples. If you think the truck analogy is wrong, then say so and reason why. Don't just go "nobody have mentioned that particular example earlier in the tread."
And BTW - I used that analogy because it's related to your poor shopping analogy.

I actually approve of most of these devices.

I just like to bitch in threads that are obviously about bitching :)

(I'll make an exception to the leaf blower. They have their uses, but I frequently think they are misused and do more harm than good to the job at hand. If ya got that big of an area, a vacuum attachment for a lawn tractor makes more sense.)

People aren't complaining about large trucks vs. a line of 100 men pushing wheelbarrows down the highway for 20 miles. But they do seem to complain about leaf blowers vs. rakes. If someone else besides you puts forth the complaint about trucks in earnest, rather than as choosing to be a stupid clown, then you might have a point.

EDIT: I reread your post, and it's even worse than I thought. You're implying wheelbarrows are a stupid solution, which is absolutely correct, and thus renders your point absurd. You agree trucks are the better solution, which is counter to your recent complaint about trucks. Ergo, you have no point.

I also think large trucks are too loud. Trains as well. But noise pollution is one of the least problematic externalities. It's short-lived, easy to block out, and unless it's really extreme, does no actual harm. It's just annoying.

You don't see the point in that one have to tolerate some discomfort if the alternative would be much more costly and labour intensive?

The wheelbarrow example is meant to be absurd to highlight other discomforts we put up with because we understand that they make our lives better.

Your analogy fails due to the matter of degree.

Then consider lawnmowers, grinders, chainsaws, branch-mulchers and other gasolin or electric powered tools that simplify tasks that might as well be done by hand, and make a bit of noise (preferably outdoors). Not to mention those large stone hammer-drills.

I can consider those, and I can and do accept them. Accepting some does not make another acceptable.

The chipper/shredder is fine, but the leaf-blower GOES TOO FAR!!!

Funny how in your attempt at sarcasm, you actually capture the truth, and yet you don't understand why.

If you start to think about jobs requiring chippers, chainsaws and jackhammers, you might see the difference.

http://www.whatdoestheinternetthink.net/



Time to lock this thread! Case closed.

I have a large number of branches from the recent storm that I could use a chipper for, though I could just haul them off as-is, that seems like a bit of a waste. There's a log and a few stumps that I'll pretty much need to use a chainsaw to clear out an axe would eventually get the job done, but again, a waste of time. If I want to put in a new patio, I'm going to need a jackhammer to remove the old concrete slab. I suppose I could get it done with a sledge, but that's a lot of back-breaking labor. If my yard is covered in leaves, a blower will get it cleaned up a whole lot faster than a rake.

In other words, the jobs that those tools are designed for are all things I might need to do in my own yard. And they are all labor-saving devices.

You don't get it, even when you need to use the tools at hand. What is the difference between the typical jobs requiring chippers, chainsaws, and jackhammers vs. leaf blowers?

Chippers are for turning branches into wood chips, chainsaws are for cutting trees down and logs into manageable size, jackhammers are for breaking up rocks and concrete, and leaf blowers are for moving leaves and grass clippings into piles.

I don't see any consistent differences. They're all fairly laborious chores, which the device in question makes easier.

The differences are obvious. Most jobs utilizing chippers, chainsaws, or jackhammers are one time jobs, not weekly, or even more frequently.

People are much more willing to forgive the disturbance which occurs with one time jobs than regular maintenance type jobs.

And people are more likely to use a labor-saving device for jobs that they have to do regularly.

Of course, you have to decrease the amount of time that you spend working.

This is comedy at its best. ROFLMFAO.

Like jackass, going into a toilet store, does his duty.

Normally I have to pay extra for that. Lucky.

I'd rather not get lucky in that way.

It doesn't change the fact that people are very annoyed by, specifically, leaf blowers, and often don't find the regular disturbance they cause to be justified.

Missing the point again, I see.

Really, I find it rather funny that you can't find the closer analogy to the leaf blower. It's the gas powered lawn mower. And yet, even that analogy fails completely. Why? Because no matter how close the analogy gets, it doesn't change the simple fact: People accept lawn mowers. But they don't really accept leaf blowers. You can throw your analysis at the situation all you want, but you can't change those facts.

By "people," I assume you mean those who have no input on the decision to hire a lawn crew, or what tools that lawn crew uses.

Those who do have input clearly do accept it, since it gets used so frequently.

I would assume that leafblowers are a once/twice/trice a year thing most places. Using it at a regular basis would be misuse of an excellent tool for it's job.

I don't know what planet is that?! Must be really quiet there.

I thought they were like ankle monitors, something DHS made certain people use so if they ever wanted to they could track them down quickly and get them to the polling stations.

Exactly. It looks like Malawi is in agreement with me on principle. He's just short of some knowledge about the real world.

If that principle is that leafblowers are a great tool for it's job, but that they can be overused, then yes.

I tend to spend most of my time in the real world and at the same planet as the rest, and I live in an area where most people have a fairly large garden. But I'm not really bothered when someone fires up their chainsaw, leafblower or whatnot - its part of life.

We've already been over chainsaws and how people aren't bothered by them. And we're clear that you think frequent regular use of a leafblower is overuse. It's also a fact that leafblowers are actually used frequently and regularly, often once a week or biweekly in suburban residential areas of single family detached homes at nearly every home in which a gardening crew is hired (which is a large percentage of homes), and up to twice a week in condo and apartment complexes and light industrial complexes and technology parks.

So, your problem is actually with gardening crews, not leafblowers?

I guess it's like cyclists, you develop a hatred for the object that enables these people to act like specialised douchebags, I think I suddenly understand why gun control advocates hate guns so much, there seem to be specific objects out there that bring out the worst in some people :P.

More like there is a certain group of people that imbue magical powers into objects. FirstAscent is a gun-control nut, too.

Funny how you fail to see that a discussion of gardening crews, or a discussion about individuals who use leafblowers all the time would have little to no meaning regarding the use of leafblowers without the subject at hand actually being the object known as a leafblower.

Actually, to put it bluntly, the problem in America is 300 million guns. I know you want to make that number 500 million pushing one billion, because you think that's actually going to improve the situation. Obviously, if 300 million guns can't solve the problem, one billion won't either. Here's a clue: the problem is 300 million guns.

See what I mean? He blames the guns, not the people who have them.

Incorrect. I stated that the problem is the quantity of guns, which is a direct result of laws, policies, lobbying and culture. A perfect and beautiful example would be your interest in more guns, rather than less.

You're still blaming the things, not the people.

Dude. What part of my quoted statement do you not understand?

There is a simple truth here. Guns, an object, which there are 300 million of in this country, need to be reduced significantly in number, not increased. People and culture, which affect laws, policies, and lobbying, are the cause of so many guns in this country. Gun rights nuts continue to exacerbate that issue, because of people like you, and because you are influenced and deluded by others.

Increasing guns in this country will not decrease gun crime. I think you need to understand that.

If only there were fewer things, the people who had them wouldn't use them against the people who didn't?

Funny how those who can't support their position with strength, conviction, facts, data and sensibility must resort to arguing about whether one should discuss a thing when discussing a subject.

It is funny, isn't it? So, why don't you stop?

I will stop, because you haven't presented anything that makes any sense, and which does not need to be refuted.

I'm glad you've finally realized the untenability of your position.

No. I just don't see anything of value in your posts here. You have an opinion, but no coherent argument.

I do have a coherent argument:
More guns, less crime.
Less guns (stricter gun laws), more crime - and especially gun crime.
http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660

Ah. Finally you've made a coherent statement. But not a coherent case.

You're brainwashed and deluded if you think that after allowing 300 million guns in this country, raising that number even higher (and higher), will solve the problem.

Not at all. You see, I understand that guns don't commit crime, leafblowers don't wake you up on sunday morning, spoons don't make you fat, pencils don't make mistakes, and computers don't hack websites.

I see you're back to derailing the argument by trying to correlate the fact that the object known as a gun is mentioned in the discussion, and thus the argument made by the one you're debating can't have any validity.

How about this: if guns don't have any effect, then you don't need any.

Tsk.. I never said they had no effect. I said that they do not commit crimes. Please learn to read.

Did I say they commit crimes? No, I did not. Thus another pointless remark on your part.

Regarding their effect: since you argue that it's the person and not the gun, then the gun must not be an important part of the equation. That is indeed what you're arguing. Thus, you don't need the gun.

You argue that fewer guns results in fewer crimes. I argue that fewer criminals results in fewer crimes.

So it's only the criminal and not the tool which determines crime?

Answer this question: if 300 million guns in this country are not enough, how many will it take? 500 million? One billion? 5 billion?

Does a hammer build a house?
Do cars drive drunk?

Stop engaging in the pointless cliched meme driven drivel and think for yourself.

Do cars get crashed into people while driven by drunks when cars aren't driven by drunks?

Answer the question in my last post.

What's the adult US population?

If you need that number to answer the question, then hunt down the number and then answer the question.

The apartment building I just moved from, and one of the reasons why... one was because of the leaf blower!

2 rotations with the lawn mower, 1 weed-eater a trimmer, and the fucking leaf blower on my window at 9-10 am.. seriously nothing better to do at 10am than wake everyone up 9 times <.<

You're a moron.

You were going to answer how many guns would reduce crime in the U.S. since you stated that you believe 300 million guns are not enough. But you can't answer it, can you? I believe less guns (much less than 300 million) is more appropriate, so I can't speculate as to what absurd number you think is appropriate, thus I asked you to provide the number.

Instead, all you can do is resort to insults.

That is not what I have experienced. Maybee there are cultural differences on this?

Think for a second. It's not how many guns there are. it's who has them.

If you say there should be fewer, how do you propose to reduce the number?

Regardless of who has them, the more there are, the more criminals will have them. Maybe you're the one who should be thinking hard about the path a gun takes from manufacturer to criminal. Furthermore, maybe you should think about why each one of those paths was initiated.


Gun permits are issued at the federal level only, where one new gun permit is issued for every three guns confiscated, or received in gun buy back programs. Nothing else. Nothing more. No exceptions.

Trust me, any criminal who wants a gun can get one. Gun laws only prevent law-abiding people from getting guns, or carrying the one they own, making a criminal's job easier.

And what about criminals, who by definition don't follow laws? They'll get (buy illegally, steal, or make) guns regardless of permit or not.

Both of your statements here fail to acknowledge the path a gun takes from the manufacturer to criminal. Furthermore, the reason a criminal can get a gun so easily is because there are 300 million of them. That number needs to be reduced, which is what I advocate. Not increased, which is what you advocate.

Typically, a gun is stolen from a legal owner, then sold on the black market.

Your plan ignores a simple law of economics: Supply and demand. Demand (particularly from criminals) won't be reduced by your policies, but the supply will. Coupled with a price floor (your buy-back program), you'll essentially drive a market for stolen guns. The black market price for a gun will skyrocket, perhaps even to the point where criminals are willing to take the risk of knocking over a cop for his gun, to say nothing of the ones in his cruiser.

This will, of course, result in reprisals, and even more violence on the streets. You thought the drug war was bad? Just wait til you see the gun war. (and that's without the inevitable corruption, and supposedly "destroyed" guns showing back up on the streets.)

There's no "perhaps" about it. Here in Australia, I remember recently a police car was stolen out of a parking lot and found abandoned a few days later - minus the guns. Guns mysteriously "disappearing" from military bases is also far more common than it should be. Naturally, the gun control lobby firmly believes we can solve these problem with tighter regulation. ::)

Well, there you go.

I love real world examples.

Actually, it all works quite well.

An increased risk of losing your gun to theft means you're less likely to be careless about it. You won't carry it on your person. You'll lock it up in a safe. You definitely wouldn't want to lose your gun, or be careless about it, because with limited permits being issued, you might not get another for a long time.

Criminals will be less likely to afford them, given the prices. Sure, they'll attempt to steal them, but the reality is, stealing them will be really hard, because those who possess guns just won't let them get stolen.

And finally, criminals will be tempted by the high prices to get rid of the ones they do have, hopefully to sting operations and/or gun buy back programs.

In the end, culturally, the gun nut crowd will realize that guns are not trivial things that should so easily be lost, misplaced, exposed, left inside a drawer or a car, but instead properly locked up in a safe. Given time, gun culture can fade away, which is ultimately what is necessary.

Because the very basic facts of the current situation is there are entirely too many guns out there, and adding more to the mix only makes the probability of criminals being in possession of them more likely.

Ignore real life evidence, spout theory. Good plan.

You're the one ignoring the simple fact that adding to an already large base of 300 million guns in circulation is not a plan. If you can get past your fetish for guns you might see that. You also might want to look at real world data regarding nations and gun metrics that aren't published with the backing of the NRA.

But we went through all this in another thread. Remember?

Like these? http://www.naturalnews.com/040427_gun_violence_control_statistics.html

Tsk-tsk-tsk... I go out for a walk to blow dandelion seeds over select, chemical lawns, and come back to see this thread totally derailed into the gun-control battlefield.
To try to gently navigate back towards the original topic, I shall point out here that leaf blowers are to urban landscaping what M28 Davy Crockett is to self-defense weaponry. A retarded, inappropriate, inefficient technology.

If you think that you should try this one for size:


'PULSEJET Powered SNOW BLOWER'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpbKGvjqsxM