Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:16:9 makes me cry (Score 1) 94

"it is like having two screens"

Yes. It's two 7:8 screens, not too far off from 4:3, really. Unfortunately, in a lappable screen (10-14"), having two 7-8" screens isn't really all that useful.

I'm moving to a 16:9 screen soon. But it'll be 4k and 40" on the diagonal. And I'm getting two. I still would prefer a ratio closer to square on a laptop/tablet, though.

Comment Re:Wood frame homes are expensive. (Score 2) 88

There's no reason that you couldn't have a masonry wall system and this kind of roof.

Of course, they're using plywood, which is about 3x as expensive as structural lumber (on a boardfoot basis), and CNC milling - which is not really "developing country" stuff. This is new age construction for hipsters. You make your couple million then go "roughing it" in a 900SF house for a few years and blog about it until the money runs out and you get tired of no Starbucks. Then you go back with your "world experience" to get another job and a $1.5M condo in the city.

Comment Re:An ikea threw up (Score 1) 88

There are lots of ways to anchor without bolts. A hook and clasp embedded in the concrete through a hole in a primary vertical element would work, as would several wedge retained mortise/tenon options. There are hundreds of years of timber joints to pull from (not that they are the most cost effective compared to a modern hold-down).

Their advantage is the possibility of deep members - much deeper than framing lumber. Their drawback is lateral/flexural/torsional stability problems, especially with few ways to create shear transfer between elements (usu done with nails).

Comment Re:Neat (Score 1) 88

Oh, that's easy. It's not like the foundations will be made of plywood. You can tie things down with a minimum number of simple anchors (or complex ones, if you absolutely have to avoid bolts).

Using a bunch of plywood does mean having to be smart with shear wall connections, though. Without nails, there are no stressed-skin anchors or plate to web shear transfer mechanisms (field glue doesn't count). Which is, of course, bolsters my point about the inability to modify/customize the houses. The more highly engineered a product is for efficiency, the more sensitive it is to changes in configuration.

Comment The Motley Fool is a pump and dump house (Score 2) 29

It used to be interesting counter-wall street advice way, way back. Now it's just click bait ads for pump and dump schemes to make them rich.

Not that the ad and click-bait has anything to do with the article, but knowing who "wrote" meant that it was clear nothing of value or insight would be written on those pages.

Comment Neat (Score 1) 88

It's a cool project. Probably good for mass production, though plywood tends to be about 2-3x as expensive per board-foot, so there would need to be a lot of efficiency built in to match the raw material cost.

Also, it will be very difficult to customize.

Comment Re:"At that price it's almost a burner" (Score 1) 149

Depends what you mean by smart. I've got a pair of 3.5" android handsets by (LG?) - one I got for $20 and includes FreedomPop service for free, and one is a $10 Tracfone branded of essentially the same type. I've used them as temporary phones for family on vacation where we knew we'd be separated. Kept in touch via voice/text/hangouts, played music, took pictures, checked email, looked up times/maps on the internet.

It's every bit a smart phone, for $20.

Comment Re:Geostationary control of androids is smarter. (Score 1) 167

One word: conquest.

If it weren't for that drive, we wouldn't bother to go at all. At this point, and for the next hundred years or more, we're going to do nothing more than a brief visit. But putting people on the surface - that's a Fuck Yeah! moment. People won't pay for robots, but they'd all chip in if some dude went and wrote his name in Martian sand in pee. *shrug*

BTW - I agree that robotic missions make much more sense.The manned program has always sucked NASA dry on a year to year basis, but if you ask the average person to name an astronaut and a robot mission to a planet, you'd better believe you'll get Neil Armstrong and a blank stare. (There's an outside chance you'll get Voyager, but my money is that half of them will call it Vygr)

Comment Re:Passwords passed around (Score 1) 100

If they're unsafe it's too late now. Putting your passwords in a cloud service is like putting nude pictures online. Nobody may want to look at them, but they're out there forever, and somebody has them backed up somewhere.

It depends on whether they ever had the keys to unlock them or they were all locally encrypted (barring the whole "they lied and stored your password anyway" tin foil hat argument).

Comment Re:Bad design? (Score 3, Insightful) 64

Yes and no. Sure, it could be lazy. OTOH, when your use case is eight million passengers every single day, there's a certain amount of redundancy to having the information with the passenger, rather than dependent on a network/data link. Four 9s uptime during flying hours still means over a thousand passenger cancellations every single day due to inaccessible data.

FORTRAN is not a flower but a weed -- it is hardy, occasionally blooms, and grows in every computer. -- A.J. Perlis