Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:No one 3D printed a house (Score 5, Informative) 98

by Mente (#48849835) Attached to: Shanghai Company 3D Prints 6-Story Apartment Building and Villa

"Although, most of the cost of buying a house has more to do with procuring the land then it does with the actual cost of building it."

In the US, in 99% of the country, this is not the case. The land is fairly cheap. I've owned homes in NJ and FL. NJ is the most densely populated state. In both cases, the land was valued at about 5%-10% of the total value of the home. Even in the case where the property was on a pond on the 18th hole of a golf course.

"Might make sense in some places where cost of land is quite low. Although in many of those places, the infrastructure for building the "house factory" and transporting the house to the site would be the major problem to solve."

Also in the US, there are a good number of "pre-manufactured" home companies that already transport homes in sections to their final location. My sister has one.

And I'm not talking about "mobile homes". http://www.allamericanhomes.co...

Comment: Re:Actually it's both. (Score 2) 360

You just disproved your own point. What Pascal's experiment showed was that it wasn't a vacuum that created the siphon ( a vacuum would be a difference in air pressure), but when one beaker was placed higher, gravity caused the mercury to flow from the higher beaker to the lower beaker. Even without the vacuum normally associated with a siphon.

Comment: Every year (Score 1) 139

by Mente (#44573553) Attached to: Cisco Slashes 4,000 Jobs

Cisco lays off about 5% of its workforce every year. They have always done this. It is the corporate culture. 5%ers are generally people that are there for a year to get Cisco on their resume and then they are off to someplace else. A decent percentage of new hires only last one year. They simply aren't re-hired after their probationary period. So if you are constantly hiring 5% and you lose 3% every year to this process, they are only laying off 2% of their poor performers.

They announce these layoffs every year to get a little jump on the stock price from people that thing they are streamlining.

core error - bus dumped

Working...