Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Misleading title (Score 1) 58

From the right angle turns on the entrance, it can obviously do that.as long as the rectangular structure fits inside the proscribed sphere the machine can reach.

However, pipes and domes are actually stronger than boxes tho they have more waste space unless your furniture is custom fitted (like a TV table with a rounded back).

My question is how much does the foam cost?
If it costs $20,000 to print $12,000 worth of the house then that's not worth much.

Is it made from renewable materials?
If it's not, it won't scale up to the global population.

Comment Re:Americans no longer want to pick fruit. (Score 4, Interesting) 115

I'm in a "weird" part of the country without much in the way of migrant workers and Americans do all "the jobs Americans won't do".

A friend of mine has a teenage son who's worked at a nearby orchard for a couple years, after school and summers. I know, he can't exist according to labor economists who don't get that bottom-wage jobs are for kids with no experience. He's off to college next year, and I doubt a robot will be taking his job.

Comment Re: Yahoo = Verizon (Score 1) 88

Polar extreme positions are bad. Having the government take over everything is just as bad as having no regulations on anything. Why don't we just let corporations poison our air, water and food? It's all for profit right!

I used the words: reasonable restraints

There is probably some reasonable middle ground that reasonable adults can find consensus on between no regulation and total regulation.

Comment Re:And yet... (Score 1) 301

If I kill you to lower costs, I still killed you.

If I hit you to lower costs, I still hit you.

If I reaccomodate you to lower costs, I still reaccomodated you.

If I hire people of only one race and age group to replace another group to lower costs, I still committed age and race discrimination.

It's quite simple really.

Motive and intent matters in some cases but in many cases it does not.

Comment Re:The view fails to account getting &*#@ed (Score 1) 542

I'm not intending to move the goal posts only to clarify.

When you say "nice" car, I hear something more expensive than a honda accord or honda element. I hear $36k to $42k instead of $22k. If you meant buy a nice car from a company with a good maintenance record then we are in agreement.

I could have pushed harder and gone with 2 year old used cars and saved more and still not been in junkers like you describe but i did not.

It's not about penny pinching- now you are moving the goal posts.

You are painting a picture of being an extreme spendthrift when that's not necessary. If you want to retire even earlier or if you want to retire at my age like those janitors with a million bucks- then sure. But my goal wasn't that extreme.

While I don't "hate" my job- but when I was 30, I realized I got no status or enjoyment out of working like other people do. I've been retired 6 years now and I'm falling behind on doing the things I want to do. There are shows to watch, drawings to draw, songs to play, gardens to tend, walks to take, and places to see.

I realized young that unlike many people I actually enjoyed my life outside of work and if I could just have the money, I felt no need to work. I recognize that some people need to work to feel happy. I'm not wired that way.

Years of luxury DOES trump a few extra years of hard work. That's my entire point. From 20 to 30, I did that. The result was few good memories of the luxuries and a lot less money. It's trivial to waste $20,000 a year eating out, going to bars, etc. It costs money to work. You only get to save some of your income. A huge chunk goes to taxes as well. You save along the way or you work til you die or you commit suicide (as an increasing number of mid 60 year old people are doing).

Comment Re:Save 30%, retire early (Score 1) 542

Buying too much house is like betting large on two pair or even 3 of a kind.

You may win. But you may lose.

Buying less house is like only betting on a full house or even a straight flush.


So you buy too much house- then you lose your job. Ruined.
So you buy too much house- then you get sick. Ruined.
So you buy too much house- then the housing market drops (as it does every recession)- and your pay is cut or taxes go up. Ruined or in a lot of pain.
The OLD game was to buy a house- let it appreciate and leverage up.
Then they got more aggressive and said it was a "no lose" proposal and you should leverage to the max.

You MIGHT win. You might turn $30,000 into $270,000 in 5 years. But you may also be wiped out.


So say you buy a more reasonable house.

In the above cases, you make it thru without much pain (because it's easy to save up a couple years living expenses really quickly when your expenses are low).

Your winnings are not as great (in my case $20,000 would have been about $150,000 if I'd flipped it but instead I stayed and it's $350,000 but that might have been 600,000 to 700,000 if I'd flipped it.).

The case where you lose in both cases a major employer in the region leaves or ceases to exist- housing in the area becomes worthless- taxes remain high longer than you can stand- you go bankrupt and can't sell the house.

In both cases, if you make it- the winning case compared to renting is very nice. Over 90% of investors ACTUAL return is 2-3% over 10, 20, and 30 years (forbes magazine). Rent goes up as fast as inflation but housing payments don't. At the start of a 30 year mortgage you are paying as much for a 3/2 house as a 2/2 rental. At the end of a 30 year mortage, you are often paying under half as much as renters are paying. In retirement, you are paying a quarter what renters are paying (for comparable properties- so in the too much house case, you'd also be renting "too much apartment/luxury condo".

As you point out- everything changes.

Nothing is certain. It's all a percentage game. Real estate only has value when people want to live on it.

And to be honest, the limits to growth scenarios look to turn very, very nasty in 30 years. I'll be hoping I'm dead because a billion to two billion people could die and global wars over resources are likely.

For example- we are using more chromium every year than we did from 1901 to 2000. We are on track to use all of it- with recycling considered and that's whats estimated to be in the entire planet- not just known resources. And that's true for almost every industrial metal outside of iron. And no chromium will mean no more stainless steel. Maybe we'll figure out a replacement for it. But we'll have to find a replacement for so many things so quickly that disruption is more likely. In the mean time- we aren't doing ANYTHING to mitigate the problem. So the likely case is that it will hit hard when it hits.

Who knows-- maybe we can make new elements with fusion.

Anyway... I guess I'm painting a little more of a "buy guns and ammo and join a group" scenario than a "should I have a star bucks or save for the future" scenario. But if it happens, it's going to suck. And if it doesn't happen -well better to own a house than be renting.

I'm almost certainly dead by then (87 and my expected mortality is 78).

Slashdot Top Deals

I have a very small mind and must live with it. -- E. Dijkstra