Sorry. I wasn't voicing my opinion about "trailer" homes, just stating that a cultural stigma exists.

Writing about the people around his hometown of Winchester, Va, Joe Bageant described the whole pyramid of mobile, manufactured, modular, etc and the relative esteem each is held in. It's around these pages:

http://books.google.ca/books?i...

I'm glad for your situation, but it doesn't affect the current norms of value for appearance unless it becomes more common. It's not just about how you value something; it's how brave you want to be about others opinions about it. Clothing is held to the strongest rules. Sweat pants and shirt are more comfortable and much cheaper than a suit, but what do you have to wear to the job interview? (Dr. Robert Frank's example.)

Because of other's opinions, people choosing non-manufactured houses aren't just misplacing values, they're counting on getting the added expense back at sale time, because of other's valuations of it. A lot of early manufactured homes had shorter lifespans and the perception they won't resell well continues. I'm all for the industry, but it still has a climb ahead of it.

IN THEORY, factory-manufactured homes would be this huge step forward over built-on-the-spot. Buckminster Fuller devoted endless hours to the subject, and imagined deployment by zepplin or helicopter, dropping off the whole Dymaxion House. Robert Heinlein wrote sharply about what a car would cost if GM sent a team of automobile assemblers to build it in your driveway.

IN REALITY, the cheapness was a hidden sales-killer. Only those with the tightest budgets live in manufactured homes, with their constraints on shape, their reputation for short service life, and they are disparaged as "trailer trash".

Printed alternatives for factory-made products will have some compromises. I'm not aware of an ability to print leather, so the shoes, for instance, will probably be *visibly* printed shoes that will be known to cost less...and come with a stigma because they will "look cheap". ANY kind of clothing that can be seen to be made a cheaper way will always carry a stigma. Jeans in the early 70s went quickly from being chic because they were cheap and proletarian and showed anti-consumerist, non-bourgeois "hippie" values to...designer jeans that cost as much as the most conspicuous-consumption choices.

"Conspicuous consumption" is not regarded as a moral sin until it hits truly comical levels (see, Saddam's palaces or much of the Hamptons) within its own culture. Dr. Robert Frank of Cornell has devoted a lot of study to the subject, is one of the best even-handed reads about income inequality; showing that you have a little money, or just really take pride in appearance, is not a bourgeois evil, it's a constant in every society through history. Adam Smith wrote about there being some decent level of clothing below which even a tramp would not be seen on the streets of Edinburgh...he wrote in the 1700s when that level was better than half the population could have afforded 200 years earlier, because fabric production was already much-mechanized. Whatever is the cheapest way to make anything is in any culture is always going to "look poor" and carry stigma.

Printing cups and bowls? Could do, but notice that people actually keep two sets of china? You might print the kid's tableware, but you won't put it out for guests. Might was well put out placemats with the sign "we're poor".

People spend a lot of money on: homes, cars, appliances/electronics, furniture - as capital assets. And clothing and other items much on display for status as well as use, as consumable assets. Notice that none of these things are going to be popular as home-printed products. I'll happily buy a home printer, there's loads of things they will do: a box of just the right size to fit a storage space, a replacement part. I just walked around the house and came up with the TV trays, the TV stand, my CD cases, the picture frames, bookends, and a whole lot of containers. All acceptable if plain and utilitarian. Everything else, I'd want it to look like it wasn't produced the cheapest way possible.

Everybody is jumping on the horribleness of the proposal, nobody seems to be catching the very obvious: it's the wrong topic for a prison reformer.

I have to skim a lot of headlines myself - just reading the 1 sentence about the 4-year-old gives me willies; for all my liberal values and intellectual knowledge about death penalty as a surprisingly poor deterrent, I want evil vengeance on such animals myself. But it's folly to obsess on these cases, and this lady has terrible priorities.

We have very few needs for more awful punishments; while these disgusting cases do come up, they're very, very rare compared to the millions of less-serious crimes that cost the state huge sums to punish with current prisons.

If you want a great slashdot techie solution, you'll love this article in The Atlantic:
http://www.theatlantic.com/mag...

from a few years back about "imprisonment" with heavy use of the ankle-trackers that rule over your life. It points out that most of the people who commit most of the crimes that have the US prison system so huge are people with poor impulse control, bad habits, and bad companions. The ankle tracker can be configured to let them go to work, go home, not be off-path for more than minutes without police response, and importantly, out of the bars and the wrong parts of town. For quite a lot of the prison population, they could be paying a few payroll taxes that compensate for their $4K costs of monitoring and parole, instead of costing us as much as keeping a kid in Harvard (nearly every prisoner is $50K/year).

We may already be unaware that simple solitary confinement is something like the time-dilation drug, that it constitutes torture in its own right:
http://www.newyorker.com/repor... ...torture that reduced Hezbollah hostage Terry Anderson to methodically smashing his head into a wall in a suicide attempt after about 18 solid months of it. He spent 7 years as a hostage in total, and could describe his mind slipping away every time they took him away from other prisoners and subjected him to solitary. John McCain wrote :
                  “It crushes your spirit and weakens your resistance more effectively than any other form of mistreatment.” And this comes from a man who was
                    beaten regularly; denied adequate medical treatment for two broken arms, a broken leg, and chronic dysentery; and tortured to the point of
                    having an arm broken again.

So we're already doing THAT. It's horrible enough for about 99.999% of the worst of the worst. Can we focus on something cheaper and actually more effective for about 50% of the least of the worst and save a few dozen billion a year?

Yay, Starship Troopers, 53rd anniversary tribute comment. Thanks!

Helmet laws suck.

Don't ever wear one when riding your donorcycle.

Let's skip over the hilarious hyperbole of comparing a business story to the prosecution of aggressive war (yes, managers love to *talk* about "crushing" opposition and evisceration and all that...all of which is hilarious hyperbole, too).

Taking it at face value - Japan had its whole regime torn down, warmongers mostly shot for war crimes, replaced with a whole different government and became a whole different culture that now votes heavily against any significant degree of aggressive militarization. If MS had *lost* that antitrust case and been broken up, managers scattered, their whole corporate culture changed, that would have been equivalent.

It wasn't just one thing - attempting to monopolize web browsers and make MS products the default choice for any web application was only a part of it. It was MS wanting to see all your product designs under non-disclosure before they'd offer to buy your company...and then the offer would be comically low and if you didn't take it, your general ideas would appear (badly) in a new Microsoft product that automatically took all your market share because...it was Microsoft.

Columnist "Robert X. Cringely" had a good term for it: "sharp trading" - always on the edge of illegal, but hard and expensive to prove as such. Nobody does business with the sharp trader twice....unless they're over a barrel.

Microsoft's *power* to do this has been reduced, but not their business model and inclinations. I have no choice but to use Office at work, and so I'm an enthused Excel VBA programmer, you make the best of what you've got. (And besides, writing a large critical application as a glorified spreadsheet macro is rare; it's just great for one-shot solutions.) But the very idea of basing a larger business system around SharePoint, their various Visual programming languages, their C# ripoff of Java, strikes me as comical; I'd go with platforms they don't control every time. MS has a long and continuing history of using their most-deeply-engaged customers the way shepherds use sheep - by which I mean "keep shearing them every year" of course. Honest.

Appropriate to what 1961 would have called a science-fiction crime, the punishment taken from Starship Troopers. I like it.

I can't help but notice all the comments so far are about technical prevention. If it is possible, well, that would be great. But for those who dodge all technical barriers and pull this off, maybe its time for some laws equivalent to those insanely high penalties for file-sharing. It's not like a 200Gbps attacks are inadvertent or accidental; they take some deliberate effort. Make it a criminal-record, no-passport, ruin-your-employability, year-in-jail kind of crime. I suppose the 15-year-old in Illinois will have his computer taken away; what if HE were taken away?

PDF at: http://www9.georgetown.edu/fac...

It wasn't about programming, specifically, but about all computer usage. I hate to summarize, but my take was that only through text can you get down to anything the tool (the computer) can do; with all interfaces, you're limited to what the designer of the interface thought you might do.

Never used MS databases; we're an Oracle shop. The Oracle driver supplies some extra goodness from OLE, the MS ODBC driver supplies adequate speed and all, though.

I've just started in on PostgreSQL connectivity, and that's fine too.

Please don't misunderstand me, guys, I H8 MS as much as the next FLOSS commie; but MS is my work environment and Excel gets stuff done for me.

When Krushchev said "we will bury you" at the UN, he *meant* "we will be around after you are gone" like "a son buries his father". It was a common Russian expression, and we had access to fine, nuanced Russian translators. Instead it became this famous threat of nuclear Armageddon, please pass the collection plate for more nukes of our own.

You can see similar rush-to-exaggerate in rhetoric that led up to WW1. I'm trying to think of a time when leaders in particular did NOT want to paint their side of a political dispute as heroism and the other side as villany. Coming up dry. Anybody? Is there a history major in the house who can point to us some long-lost "Age of Nuanced Political Dispute" ?

Sounds like you and the post you're replying to might have the answer to a question I've wanted to ask a real spreadsheet power user for some time. I'm a MS detractor in general but have fallen deeply for Excel in the last decade as I learned VBA, creating whole small applications with same, pivot tables, database access via ODBC and OLE - sometimes Excel is my whole work environment, hitting on huge databases, downloading chunks into pivot tables, using spreadsheet calcs to create masses of UPDATE statements that then change the same database.

Does ANY of that work in OOo ? I know it has some kind of database connection, but it seemed pretty lame by comparison; I know it has a macro language of its own, but unlike VBA there aren't six thick books on it and mega-lines of code to steal from the Net - so I'd anticipate a huge drop in capability if I switched.

This isn't about whether the (very) widespread claims that current evidence supports 'global warming', it's about whether Mann committed scientific fraud.

For instance, George Bush's commander really did think of Bush the way a fake letter (put forth by CBS as real) said he did; presumably the faker was frustrated by his inability to get that fact in the news, so he resorted to fraud, no doubt thinking that the real truth made it morally OK. But he still committed fraud, and the news that the secretary who would have typed the letter if it were real, said it was the commander's opinion, even as she debunked the letter was quite lost in the scandal over the fraud.

So global warming could be real, and Mann still a fraud, or it could be all a huge mistake by thousands of scientists, and Mann NOT a fraud, simply in possession of data that was mistaken or didn't mean what he thought.

Steyn is no doubt happy about the trial, because it will give him grounds to subpoena great heaps of Mann's work, looking for the same thing that the climategate E-mail thieves looked for: any kind of out-of-context quote they can find that they cam drum up into a "scandal" - a fraudulent one, of course...

And there's a punchline in the third sentence:

And the attorney general reiterated that the United States was not willing to offer clemency to Mr. Snowden

"Clemency", kind or merciful treatment of one who deserves harsh punishment, says the dictionary.

So the full offer is: "We'll talk if you come back, plead guilty and are punished to the fullest extent of the law."

It's like some kind of Woody Allen line, "My lawyer plea-bargained my sentence down to death".

In an environment with truly open competition, prices must be driven down to the costs of production, plus whatever profit pays for the seller's own work and risk. Anybody charging more is outpriced by somebody willing to accept that minimum.

Every service provision has capital and operating components. Connection to any network - water, gas, power, comms - has a fixed price whether you use it or not, and an incremental price proportional to usage. Keeping a network to a whole city running costs a good $25/month, flat - but then incremental water, power, whatever, are often pretty cheap. Blended rates per-unit only work where everybody consumes in the same order of magnitude at most. (Many get around this because the high consumers can be identified and "commercial rates" for water or whatever are lower per-unit.)

And we know the answer on gigabytes: Netflix pays something under a nickel each. Since bandwidth purchases differ by well over an order of magnitude, the bill will always screw somebody to benefit another unless it breaks out the costs: $35/month plus a dime a gigabyte, (or something similar)