I think you would probably make a lot of sacrifices for 252 square feet. That's a square 15 feet on a side, smaller than a standard 2 car garage. My dad lived in a 40 foot motorhome (8 ft x 40 ft) and that's 320 square feet and it felt small when I stayed in it; plus, most everything was motorhome-sized (stove, toilet/bath, etc) and a lot of built-ins & storage efficiencies.

This guy says he has a wife and 3 kids -- I think it might take some religious type orientation to live in a cold climate with 5 people in 250 sq ft of space.

The most bare necessities like a toilet, sink, tub, bed, stove, fridge, table, chairs add up pretty quickly. I didn't dig around enough in his web site to see if there were inside pictures, but I'd be curious to see how its arranged.

My biggest beef is just that the poster was disingenuous -- "I built a stone house for $7k". What he built is smaller than most garages and approaches a large shed in actual size. I'm also skeptical $7k can actually cover building, furnishing and decorating even that small space completely. Maybe if he moved in existing appliances. Maybe if he built all his own case goods. Maybe if the finish materials are like prison-basic (just coating the slab with a gloss topcoat instead of tile or carpet), white paint on the walls, etc

Actual Screenshots... But of what? Somebody's CONCEPT of what it MIGHT have looked like?

Show me the actual site that these came from; because I think even you would agree that they sure don't look like the screenshots on the Apple site, which are easily verified.

So, "source" for those pics, or STFU.

252 square feet is smaller than a lot of New York City apartments. A king size bed alone is 42 square feet.

I do agree that a lot of the "smart house" technology isn't very sustainable, and realtors I've talked to tend to say that it actually makes houses hard to sell.

I suspect, though, that some flavor of smart technology will become more normal at least with regards to electricity. I think improvements in battery capacity, reductions in net metering value and so on will get more people running from mixed power sources, whether it's grid, generators, solar, wind, etc, and an electrical system that understands its power source, available power, charge status, etc will become not unreasonable.

I don't know where you got that BOGUS screenshot; but OS X looks NOTHING like that picture. Here is the current version of OS X, "Yosemite" (10.10) and the soon-to-be-released "El Capitan" (10.11).

Although it is certainly "flatter" than it used to be, as you can plainly see, it looks NOTHING like those horrid, fugly, trumped-up pictures you linked. In fact, if you scroll down on the "Yosemite" Page I linked to the point where it says "More elegant, from A to Z", you will see how the Finder window ALLEGEDGLY depicted in the ALLEGED 10.10 Screenshot you linked REALLY looks.

Liar.

Now who's feeling stupid?

NASA was a great, even fantastic thing back when there was no commercial motivation to do research on space and powerful rockets. Back when there was little to no commercial launch market.

Now NASA is full of pork.. You cannot kill it because . . . pork. In every congressional district.

NASA is not and never has been efficient. At one time that was irrelevant because of the nature of what they did. Now is is more about letting bureaucrats CYA when something blows up. And to make sure money flows freely to as many congressional districts as possible. The traditional contractors are not designed to be efficient either, except at maximizing how much they can suck from the government teat.

One way NASA might end is that with lower and lower budgets NASA simply cannot do anything. Alternately, they might end because they get budgets big enough to actually do something, making the real inefficiency clear for all to see.

NASA must be held to the same safety standards that commercial providers are held to. Otherwise, a culture of evading or ignoring those safety standards will creep in.

The only role that NASA might have left is projects that require large investment to overcome a lack of commercial motives. For example, going to Mars. Maybe for operating a space station. Probably not for mining asteroids.

Interesting. How big is it? I didn't see any size estimates (nor did I spider the web site, either) but it looks pretty small -- 20 ft or less on the long side, maybe 10-15 on the short side, call it 300 sq ft. That's extremely small -- the standard size for a two car garage is 400 sq ft.

While it's impressive that you were able to produce an entire house for $7k, had you said "yeah, we build a stone house for $7k and it's only 300 square feet" it would have seemed more realistic.

It almost seems like you leave how small it is out of the "entire house for $7k" claim on purpose to make the brag seem more amazing.

That is exactly why the stickers are gone, IMHO too. It is rather easy to find XP Pro/Home stickers. Vista stickers happen occasionally. 7 stickers are rare though in residentials dumpsters.

I don't dumpster dive much more these days, it's not worth the effort.

Here for example... I ordered licenses there, they work and from what I gather it is legal (enough) in the EU.

The results of not killing them -- two US soldiers killed, one gravely injured, several killed when a rescue chopper comes under fire and crashes. I couldn't even give you the Taliban body count -- my guess is at least two dozen killed by the 3 SEALs as they tried to escape, another dozen or more killed by a helicopter when it finally rescued the "Lone Survivor".

The results of killing them? Two dead Taliban, the 3 SEALs escape.

And in the annals of military history in any similar situation the two Taliban would have been killed by any scouting party or commandos lest they imperil their mission and escape.

It's interesting how you only say "I did it" without explaining how you did it.

Most cost estimating uses ~$100/sq ft for residential properties, which would make your stone house 70 sq. ft.

Provide some facts -- finished square feet, internal materials and features, cost of land, etc, otherwise I have to remain skeptical.

Look: I work in and Admin Windows all day at work. I develop Windows Application software for a living., yadda, yadda. I KNOW the Difference.

Every day, and in every way, I am reminded about how much more well thought out and just plain more pleasant to use OS X is over any version of Windows that I have had the displeasure to use (3.10 to 8, and NT 3.51 to Server 2014). Windows 7 (which I have on my work laptop), is only JUST tolerable, and the way they are going these days...

And I wrote a task switcher for my Apple ][ in 1980; so what?

You are retarded. Reread my posts, and pay attention, if possible.

Unbelievable.

No. Unfortunately, all-too believable around here.

I currently have a web radio transceiver front panel application that works on Linux, Windows, MacOS, Android, Amazon Kindle Fire, under Chrome, Firefox, or Opera. No porting, no software installation. See blog.algoram.com for details of what I'm writing.

The one unsupported popular platform? iOS, because Safari doesn't have the function used to acquire the microphone in the web audio API (and perhaps doesn't have other parts of that API), and Apple insists on handicapping other browsers by forcing them to use Apple's rendering engine.

I don't have any answer other than "don't buy iOS until they fix it".