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

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

Instant Buildings - Just Add Water 519

Posted by Zonk from the where-are-my-flying-cars? dept.
lawrencekhoo writes "Wired has an article about the newly invented Building in a Bag. The structure is made from cement impregnated fabic, that is sealed in an easily transportable plastic bag. You literally just add water, and then inflate. Twelve hours later, you have a ready to use building. Possible uses include shelter for disaster areas, and instant field hospitals."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Instant Buildings - Just Add Water More

Instant Buildings - Just Add Water

Comments Filter:

  • Time to advance. (Score:4, Funny)

    by dauthur ( 828910 ) <johannesmozart@gmail.com> on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @09:26PM (#11949241)
    This sounds like the building process from the Jetsons. Maybe now we can move on from the trailer homes, manufactured homes and traditional building and move onto "Ziplock Construction Co."
    • No. I'd bet that this will replace only temporary shelters, like the ones soldiers build, and Red Cross aid. But, they haven't even got a patent yet... Anyway, who the hell wants to live in a giant egg-shaped thing? Not to mention thin walls...read TFA.

      • What's not to like? (The cost?) (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Tau Zero ( 75868 ) on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @10:08PM (#11949620) Journal
        It's a shell that's strong in compression. Pile earth on it, and you've got your sound and thermal insulation. The one issue I can see is the small size; 172 square feet isn't much. You'd need a lot of them for any kind of refugee situation, and at $2100 each (about $12/square foot) it's probably as expensive as local housing in most of the world if not more so.

        • Re:What's not to like? (The cost?) (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Capt'n Hector ( 650760 ) on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @11:41PM (#11950280)
          The army will eat this up. They don't care about the costs, and it's perfect for them. This could be a sturdy (relative to a tent) frontline building; a small mess hall, infirmary, officer's quarters, hummer garage... the list goes on.

          • Re:What's not to like? (The cost?) (Score:5, Funny)

            by AndroidCat ( 229562 ) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @09:03AM (#11952205) Homepage
            I dunno Capt'n. I mean, would the army really like blowing up buildings?

    • Re:Time to advance. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by idlake ( 850372 ) on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @09:55PM (#11949528)
      The fact that much of the US still builds by nailing drywall and siding to a bunch of wooden beams is not for a lack of new building techniques--it's simply still cheaper and easier, mostly simply because it's what everybody else does (=economies of scale).

      • Re:Time to advance. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Rei ( 128717 ) on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @10:01PM (#11949571) Homepage
        It doesn't have to be. It doesn't have to be 2k$ impromptu shelters, either. There are factory-development methods out there for building custom homes. You can have machines cut and assemble almost arbitrary floor plans, and ship out prebuilt sections of the house to assemble on spot.

        Unfortunately, there's this stigma of "prefab housing" being small, low-quality, one-design "housing for the poor". It's kind of annoying seing such stereotypes standing in the way of progress to cheaper, higher quality housing. I mean, large buildings have been shifting a lot more to automated construction, and houses lend themselves even more readily to it because the sections are smaller and easier to transport.

        • Re:Time to advance. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by idlake ( 850372 ) on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @10:04PM (#11949598)
          Well, I agree, technically, it doesn't have to be. But if you try to buy or build a new home, you will find that, in reality, in the US, most of your choices for something average-to-nice come down to traditional construction. Furthermore, you'll have problems with resale value if you buy prefab.
        • Sears & Roebuck used to do this. See http://www.searsarchives.com/homes/

        • Re:Time to advance. (Score:4, Interesting)

          by SunFan ( 845761 ) on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @10:41PM (#11949900)
          Unfortunately, there's this stigma of "prefab housing" being small, low-quality, one-design "housing for the poor".

          It all depends on the finishing contractor. Modular housing is built to the same standards as regular housing, but if you have a crappy contractor come in to do the finish work, you might as well have bought a trailer. Just like regular construction, you have to really stay on top of the process (e.g., visit the site, double check things after important milestones, etc.)

        • Re:Time to advance. (Score:5, Interesting)

          by afidel ( 530433 ) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @12:31AM (#11950529)
          The problems with prefab housing are twofold, first and most importantly is that anything which is light enough to allow for economical transport of economically buildable subsections is going to be chinsy compared to a real timber and 3/4" plywood plus 3/4" hardwood floors. The second problem is that preparing the site and combining the pieces takes almost as much labor as rough framing an equivilant structure, and all of the labor besides the site prep and rough framing is done by skilled laborers that will charge about the same for their work whether it is done onsite or as part of assembling prefab blocks.

  • but how..... (Score:5, Funny)

    by EmptyBuffalo ( 649938 ) * on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @09:26PM (#11949245) Homepage
    So, once I get my mother-in-law to go into the building, how do I get the whole thing back into the bag?

    • Re:but how..... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @09:39PM (#11949378)
      You're funny, but you're raising a valid point. They're thinking of using this for shelter for disaster areas, and instant field hospitals... Personally I think tents are better for these purposes, since you can actually dismantle them and reuse them in the future. Why would you for instance want to smack up 10,000 of these in a disaster area, just to have to tear them down a couple of months down the road?

      • Re:but how..... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Rei ( 128717 ) on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @10:05PM (#11949601) Homepage
        People will use them after the aid agencies leave. Probably not for themselves, mind you, but they'll find *some* use.

        I've seen several pictures of those mass-built concrete houses that various aid agencies have built in earthquake-hit parts of Iran to provide shelter and make it so that the locals won't get killed in the next quake. Nobody was living in any of them - instead, they used them to hold their livestock. Apparently they were a lot more uncomfortable to live in than traditional housing in the climate (in addition to being an eyesore).

  • I can see it all now... (Score:5, Funny)

    by telstar ( 236404 ) on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @09:27PM (#11949258)
    Thousands of refugees adding water and ingesting their "building in a bags" thinking they were MRE's [theepicenter.com].
  • If we're just talking about instant structures for specific needs, why not fiberglass? 3M makes a casting material (as in, for setting broken bones) that is fiberglass with a resin that is activated with water and sets very rapidly. Why not use something just like that? You can then spray it with an epoxy to make it watertight. It wouldn't be as rigid as a concrete structure, and you would have to anchor it somehow, but it would also be a whole hell of a lot lighter and easier to customize (by cutting holes in it with any kind of saw before you sprayed epoxy on it.)
    • why not fiberglass?
      Fire? Last I looked, fibreglass burns. Nastily.

      Would make a good mother-in-law house, though - what better way to "cement" a relationship than with a load of flammable epoxy ...

      • Wood burns too, quite hot I might add, but it doesn't stop us from building houses out of it.

        • Obligatory (Score:3, Funny)

          by op12 ( 830015 )
          What also floats in water?

          Bread! Apples! Uh, very small rocks!
        • Wood burns too, quite hot I might add, but it doesn't stop us from building houses out of it.
          ... which is why walls and ceilings are covered in gyproc, sheetrock, plasterboard, etc.

          Also, when wood is under compression, it's a LOT harder to ignite. Take a look at any older (+75 years) building after a fire - the wood main beams will be charred, but probably not burnt through, whereas steel beams would have buckled under the heat.

          Also, when fibreglass resin burns, the resulting fumes are more toxic.

          • Re:I have a "better" idea... or at least different (Score:5, Informative)

            by wwwillem ( 253720 ) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @12:59AM (#11950686) Homepage
            Also, when wood is under compression, it's a LOT harder to ignite. Take a look at any older (+75 years) building after a fire - the wood main beams will be charred

            Your observation is right, but the reason is different. When a thick beam starts to burn, the charcoal that forms itself on the outside will start to protect the inner wood from burning, as soon as it is more then 5 cm / 2 inches thich. Charcoal is funny enough a fire retardent.

            As an example, in most (probably all) countries, steel structures must be protected against fire, which is normally done with plaster, concrete, etc. However, at least in Holland, the building code allows you to wrap the steel in 5 or more cm of wood instead.

            So back to your 75+ year old house. What protects those beams against the fire is the fact that the pieces of wood used are much thicker than the current 2x6 studs. Or the current "construction beams" that are just strips of plywood with some wood laminated at the ends.

    • Re:I have a "better" idea... or at least different (Score:5, Informative)

      by Noose For A Neck ( 610324 ) on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @10:15PM (#11949671)
      Well, speaking as an engineering student, the main problem I can see with making a structure where all load-bearing components are strictly made out of fiberglass is that fiber-reinforced plastics (the catagory into which fiberglass and carbon fiber composites, among others, fall) are only really strong in tension, and even then, only along the axes parallel or close to parallel to the fiber orientations. If you add in compressive loads to the structure (as is sure to happen in any structure I can think of), the material's strength is dramatically reduced, meaning you either have to use a whole lot more material (and thus add more weight that the structure has to support) or switch materials.

      Concrete just happens to be very effective at handling compressive loads, and when reinforced with steel rebar or the like, can handle tensile loads in a reasonable manner as well. This is probably the reason that cement is used in lieu of epoxies and other plastics - it has better load-bearing characteristics under compression.

    • but then they couldn't win the prize (Score:5, Interesting)

      by bodrell ( 665409 ) on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @10:44PM (#11949930) Journal
      Seeing as they came up with the idea as an entry in a "innovative concrete uses" contest, they probably didn't want to use fiberglass.

      There is also the issue of wind. I'm sure concrete structures don't blow away as easily, and many disaster areas are going to have lots of wind and water. Plus, concrete doesn't need to dry to set. Apparently it sets up quite nicely underwater.

      My father has been building unique houses for about thirty years. One was an earth-covered house ("underground" is a bit misleading, but that's what I would normally call it) and he's been looking into a very modular building material called 3-D Panel [panelcrete.ca] which is basically styrofoam between wire meshes. After you assemble the building, using rebar or something to connect wire meshes together, you spray it with shotcrete [cement.org], and you're done. I mean, if we're allowed to have a spraying apparatus, why not? The specs for this panel system are impressive. They say the insulating value is R-18 to R-33--better than the new homes they throw up these days in my neighborhood.

  • A housing solution for slashdotters (Score:5, Funny)

    by The I Shing ( 700142 ) * on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @09:27PM (#11949262) Journal
    Finally, I can move out of my parents' basement!

  • reminds me of a t-shirt I once had.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by wileycoyoteacme ( 319236 ) on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @09:27PM (#11949263)
    Instant asshole, just add alcohol

  • Great! (Score:5, Funny)

    by biggerboy ( 512438 ) on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @09:27PM (#11949264)
    An inflatable building to house my inflatable...er...friend.

  • Somewhere... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Penguinshit ( 591885 ) on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @09:27PM (#11949265) Homepage Journal

    ..Dr. Schlock just got a hard-on...

  • Transportable? (Score:5, Funny)

    by FiReaNGeL ( 312636 ) <`moc.liamtoh' `ta' `l3gnaerif'> on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @09:28PM (#11949275) Homepage
    Yeah, ok, cool for emergencies. But I won't be carrying one on my back anytime soon, cause I'm sure it weight a ton, literally :)

    Do they come in multiple flavors, too?

  • What do you add... (Score:4, Funny)

    by EmptyBuffalo ( 649938 ) * on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @09:28PM (#11949282) Homepage
    ...to get your cement building to grow a door?

  • One drawback... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bpuli ( 654182 ) on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @09:29PM (#11949291) Homepage
    While the product is innovative and interesting, the comparison (cost-wise) with other "portable" structures is not correct. This looks to be (from the article) a non-portable semi-permanent structure.

  • why the concrete? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by qwasty ( 782400 ) on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @09:29PM (#11949293)
    Why not dispense with the concrete and just make it inflatable? I doubt the concrete will make it all that much more permanent of a shelter than it would otherwise be. Besides, if it's good enough for space, it's good enough as a temporary shelter. Check out the inflatable space habitats [space.com]

    • Re:why the concrete? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Tyler Eaves ( 344284 ) on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @09:42PM (#11949401)
      Ever pop a hole in a ballon?
      Ever pop a hole in a sidewalk?

    • I would imagine in space you will be entering and exiting the structure a whole lot less than you would at 1 atm of air. Mechanisms for controlling pressure loss and for keeping pressure above ambient have to be taken into consideration. These are devices that will likely make the structure less portable.

      Which isn't to say that positive internal air pressure isn't an integral part of some earth-bound structures. Several large sports domes (the Carrier Dome in Syracuse, NY, for example) use positive intern

  • Doorways? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @09:32PM (#11949309)
    That is my question, how do you get in?

    • Re:Doorways? (Score:2, Informative)

      by rgmoore ( 133276 ) *

      This should be easy. The building is made of three components: an inner airtight layer, cloth, and concrete in the cloth. To make a door, you'd just have a section in which the inner layer wasn't covered by the cloth and concrete. You'd still be able to inflate the building, and when the concrete set you could cut through the uncovered inner layer with a knife to make a doorway.

  • How much if manufactured in China? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @09:32PM (#11949316)
    How much do you reckon the instant building would cost if it was manufactured in China?

    I am thinking it would be a great way to help poor people in Third World countries have a cheap roof over their heads that is actually high quality. I can imagine a slum in Mumbai filled with thousands of these instant buildings. What are the economics and advantages of an instant building as replacement for flimsy shelters in slums across the world?
    • How would a structure like this, designed for temporary use, stand up to the test of time? I'd imagine that over time things would start to fatigue. Perhaps if the building was dome shaped it would be more resistant to earthquakes though.
    • basically, a slum is an aggregation of cheap and above all temporary housing. at USD 2100 (about LKR 210,000 - a LOT of money where i live) per unit the housing is more expensive than most slum dwellers can afford. also i believe there is a high population turnover in slum areas. people come and people go.and the parts are scavenged to make the other slum dwellings better.

      further, the land that slums are on become more desirable as the city develops. which gives the impetus for the governments to move peop
  • The military will be all over this. Think about airdropping an advance team in some clearing, give them 12 hours, and they have a defendable base with concrete walls. Portable bunker. If it could be adapted to making other shapes of concrete surfaces, drop a large number of them, and make a concrete landing strip. Rapid deployment operations and base fortification would have days cut off their time.
    • yeah this would work great for a Middle-East or an African deployment where military operations are most likely to take place and where water is plentiful. I guess the soldiers could all drink a boat load of water and just piss in the thing when they arrive.
    • a defendable base with concrete walls. Portable bunker.
      I doubt these walls will be able to withstand even a Kalashnikov bullet, much less an RPG...

      Eventually -- maybe. But for now it is unlikely to be usable as a bunker, even if other military applications are possible -- the walls ought to be stronger than a tent's, for example.

      • Actually, if you reinforced the inflatable portion with multiple layers of Kevlar, you could have near-instant defensible fortifications against small arms fire. And, if you compartmentalize, you might even provide some limited survivability against RPGs and other explosive weapons. Of course, doing this would dramatically increase the amount of weight you'd be lugging around.

    • Re:Military applications (Score:5, Funny)

      by EvilIdler ( 21087 ) on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @09:48PM (#11949470)
      This also means we're one step closer to the fast building of today's
      real-time strategy games :)

  • Yeah... (Score:2, Funny)

    by kryogen1x ( 838672 )
    ... but does it run on Linux?

    Forgive me

    ...cement impregnated fabic

    Does that statement raise anyone else's eyebrows?

  • I don't think the military needs this (Score:5, Interesting)

    by QuantumG ( 50515 ) <qg@biodome.org> on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @09:38PM (#11949368) Homepage Journal
    In a world with millions of refugees, numerous war zones and huge areas devastated by natural disaster, aid agencies and militaries have long needed a way to quickly erect shelters on demand.

    "agencies" maybe, but the military already has a way to erect shelters quickly: lots and lots of man power. Ever watched how quickly soldiers setup and take down a camp?

  • Spelling and grammar troll (Score:5, Interesting)

    by WillerZ ( 814133 ) on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @09:38PM (#11949373) Homepage
    Sorry, but I can't help myself...

    The English language has some rules about the correct placement of commas in a sentence. It's not a case of "Instant grammar just, add commas!!!1"

    May I take this opportunity to recommend Lynne Truss's "Eats, Shoots and Leaves" to the author of the above summary?

    Oh, and the word you were looking for was F-A-B-R-I-C, fabric; not fabic. Fabic sounds like an eastern-european football player.

    </rant>
    • I realise that the above isn't very constructive; here's what the summary should have said:

      Wired has an article about the newly invented Building in a Bag. Just add water and inflate: Twelve hours later you'll have a ready to use building. This is ideal for use where tents are too flimsy and conventional buildings are too unwieldy.

  • *Second* prize? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Futaba-chan ( 541818 ) on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @09:38PM (#11949374)
    Supposedly, the building-in-a-bag won second prize in the Cement Association contest that it was originally designed as an entry for. I'd love to see what the winner came up with....

    • Re:*Second* prize? (Score:5, Informative)

      by finnhart ( 653695 ) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @12:09AM (#11950427)
      I know parent is modded funny, but I wondered the same thing. From the British Cement Association site [cementindustry.co.uk]:

      First prize of £3,000 went to Il Hoon Roh for his reinforced concrete organic modular system that impressed the judges for its visually exciting construction potential. The second prize of £2,000 was awarded to Peter Brewin and Will Crawford for their joint entry of portable emergency concrete tents. The humanitarian potential of this entry was very evident. Phoebe Cummings and Stine Vesperson were awarded the third prize of £1,000 for their delicate pieces that combined lace with concrete. The effect gave concrete, usually seen to be a robust material, a more soft and fragile character.
  • Meh, I've been using prefab shelters for ages...

    ... in computer strategy war games that is.

    Cheers,
    Adolfo

  • bah! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by agent0range_ ( 472103 )
    I would hardly consider '12 hours' to be 'instant.'

  • This product will soon be acquired by Acme Co. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Travoltus ( 110240 ) on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @09:43PM (#11949415) Journal
    One of their first customers will be Wile E Coyote.

    Mark my words! :)

  • fabic (Score:2, Funny)

    by eclectro ( 227083 )

    No thanks. I will stick with bicks and concete.

  • technique used for several decades now (Score:5, Informative)

    by idlake ( 850372 ) on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @09:51PM (#11949496)
    Hard-shelled structures created from inflatable templates are actually quite common. Usually, they are made by spraying concrete or polymer onto the inflatable shell. Alternatively, you first pour on the concrete, then inflate (it takes fairly little pressure to do so). The lining is some combination of fabric and water/air-proof plastic. Some of the templates are reusable, others become part of the structure.

    Have a look at Domtec [domtec.com] and Binishells [sfgate.com].
  • We can take all our valuable water and use it for building little houses!

    Better yet, let's just throw thousands of these bags in the ocean and create an underwater city instantaneously!

    • Better yet, let's just throw thousands of these bags in the ocean and create an underwater city instantaneously!

      Excess water would probably yield very poor quality concrete and ocean currents would probably wash the concrete away before it set. Also, the baloons would need to be well anchored or they would float to the surface.

      Another technique for this (although not as quick) is to just deploy a metal mesh (think window screen size). Then you apply electricity to the mesh and the minerals in sea

  • Thats great, anyone have an idea of where I can get one?
  • I wonder if you can possibly make it so you could rewet it and collapse it again for reuse. Then in order to keep it dry while erect, you can cover it with a tarp or something.

    Also, I wonder if there are some possibilities for using this process to aid in offworld habitat construction like on mars. This could save a lot of space on a shuttle.

  • I can't be the only one... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Icarus1919 ( 802533 ) on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @10:03PM (#11949587)
    Who sees the potential for glorious abuse? Just stick it in someone's car, put a hose in, and run like hell.
  • Does it come with ethernet hookup?
  • Instant water, just add water.

  • Just the thing... (Score:3, Funny)

    by AJWM ( 19027 ) on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @10:23PM (#11949737) Homepage
    Just the thing for backpacking in bear country.

    Well, except for the weight...

  • Where do you get the water? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by madshot ( 621087 ) on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @10:41PM (#11949901) Homepage Journal
    Don't people usually have problems with water during disasters? If you place contaminated water into the structure are you going to have problems?

    What about areas where the problem is they have no water? Just some thoughts..
    • Well, it so happens I had reason to read the standards used by humanitarian organizations some months ago for a project I had. You generally site your camp near a water supply. The problem is decontaminating the water so it can be used to drink and wash with. If the water source isn't contaminated to start with, ifyou put a refugee camp next to it, it will be.

      Using contaminated water in a concrete structure is probably not going to be a problem, because you aren't going to ingest it. Drinking even very s

    • Re:Where do you get the water? (Score:5, Funny)

      by dubiousmike ( 558126 ) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @12:08AM (#11950418) Homepage Journal
      just make use of the included powdered water...

  • Reminds me of something Bill Moss once showed me (Score:3, Interesting)

    by hey! ( 33014 ) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @12:11AM (#11950437) Homepage Journal
    Bill Moss was one of the founders of Moss tents and the inventor of the modern dome tent. I met him about ten years ago through a guy I worked with.

    Anyhow, he showed me this invention he had, it looked like one of those tiny bicycling or backpacking tents, but it was made of cleverly prestressed and folded cardboard. Basically it folded flat, then instantly popped up into a small shelter. It bulged in the middle and had a small hole in one end you crawled through. It wouldn't be much of the shelter, but it could make the difference between freezing to death and surviving. He had designed it to address the problem of homeless people dying of hypothermia on cold nights in the city. You could pile hundreds of them in the back of pickup, and since they were basically cleverly designed cardboard boxes it would cost next to nothing.

    In any case, I don't think it ever went into production, possibly becasue it may not have made enough of a difference to be worthwhile. But it was an interesting idea, cleverly executed.

  • University of Manitoba (Score:3, Informative)

    by Darth Cider ( 320236 ) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @12:13AM (#11950445)
    Mark West at the University of Manitoba has created a department [canadianarchitect.com] specializing in applications of flexible fabric formworks in architecture. Here's an excerpt:

    The natural tension geometries given by formwork fabrics simplify the production of lightweight, high efficiency structural shapes. The formworks themselves are extraordinarily light and very inexpensive. The flexibility of a fabric formwork membrane makes it possible to produce a multitude of architectural and structural designs from a single, reusable mold. The use of permeable formwork membrane fabrics produces improved surface finishes and strength as a result of a filtering action allowing air bubbles and excess mix water to bleed through the formwork membrane.

    I saw examples at the National Building Museum in Washington D.C. last summer and was impressed by the smooth finish of the cement surfaces and also the potential to create very elaborate, beautiful and sturdy structures using really really cheap fabric casings. These new approaches to housing construction are not trivial.

  • The bigger question is... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by suman28 ( 558822 ) <suman28NO@SPAMhotmail.com> on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @08:16AM (#11952011)
    What happens to the building after its use is over? More trash or leave it for the residents of whereever it is to clean up?

  • This is great news... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anita Coney ( 648748 ) on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @09:24AM (#11952298) Homepage
    ... It's nice to see that eminent scientist Wile E. Coyote, PhD, has finally put the past behind him and is concentrating on real work nowadays.

Slashdot Top Deals

Two can Live as Cheaply as One for Half as Long. -- Howard Kandel

Close