Posted by MadArab on Thursday June 18, 2009 @ 06:38am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

More links to annoy Caliber.

Shipping Container Offers Service With A Solar-Enhanced Smile
We continually hear about new innovations in recycling and though Quebec's MuvBox isn't the most outlandish thing out there, it certainly is one of the more unique examples of turning something practical into, well...something really practical and maybe even a little edgy, to boot. First, take a run-of-the mill shipping container -- this one certainly won't be winning any beauty contests anytime soon.

Then, give it a nice, fresh coat of white paint. You know what? Don't stop there...how about adding a whole bunch of black and red accents all over it? Go ahead, just get funky with your bad artsy self. There, much better.

Now, add a state-of-the-art kitchen inside along with retractable insta-seating for patrons on the outside and what have you got? A mobile kitschy-meets-cool pop-up dining spot that can cater to the short attention span diner with plenty of novelty to spare.

http://www.greenwala.com/community/blogs/all/1003-Shipping-Container-Offers-Service-With-A-Solar-Enhanced-Smile?f=true


Would You Live In A Shipping Container?
Adam Kalkin isn't the only architect to make homes out of shipping containers. A handful of architects, including Jennifer Siegal and Lot-Ek, began using them ten years ago as a gritty reaction against the tidy white surfaces of modernism. But nobody has employed shipping containers more inventively than Kalkin, a New Jersey architect and artist who has used them to design luxurious homes, museum additions and refugee housing.

http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/michael-cannell/cannell/would-you-live-shipping-container

Posted by voltaic on Tuesday June 16, 2009 @ 09:15am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Shipping container homes = trendy.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/06/12/recycled.homes/index.html

Posted by Stealth on Wednesday June 17, 2009 @ 08:16am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Shipping container homes = trendy.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/06/12/recycled.homes/index.html

it's really not a bad idea. But I'm sure they want a lot of money because it's the cool new things to do.

Posted by voltaic on Wednesday June 17, 2009 @ 12:58pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

it's really not a bad idea. But I'm sure they want a lot of money because it's the cool new things to do.

There is probably a non-trivial cost for refurbishing the containers with shit like carpet, drywall and paint, electrical lines, and plumbing. When you think about it, the containers do little more than replace a house's wood framing from a practical point of view. And even though profit = evil in some parts of the world, profit is still required for someone to want to participate as a supplier/producer in a market.

On the other hand, until demand shoots through the roof with some kind of big developer or architect using them, there's a glut of supply of unused containers. High supply + low demand = low prices. At best, a faddish trend may bump demand a little bit, but if the price is too high no one is going to buy.

Posted by Caliber on Wednesday June 17, 2009 @ 11:57am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Shipping container homes = trendy.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/06/12/recycled.homes/index.html

it's really not a bad idea. But I'm sure they want a lot of money because it's the cool new things to do.

The article implies that its still cheaper than a real house. I can see the value, but I would wonder about rust with all that steel out of sight out of mind.

I wonder if they take transport energy into consideration when they do the energy expenditure estimation

Posted by voltaic on Wednesday June 17, 2009 @ 01:02pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

The article implies that its still cheaper than a real house. I can see the value, but I would wonder about rust with all that steel out of sight out of mind.

Meh, probably easy to solve. Scale it down to bare steel in its current state (perhaps using sandblasting or something cheap and quick) then repaint with a high quality paint. I mean think about it: these containers sit in ocean air and salt seaspray for months (on ships and on docks) with little to no significant rusting. They've probably got that part of the process more or less solid.

I wonder if they take transport energy into consideration when they do the energy expenditure estimation

This is my first thought as well. I imagine they could get around this by considering the sunk cost of the container as part of its "previous life", so that you are only comparing the current part of its life (aka beginning at the dock then driving to your property) compared to the economic cost of producing new home-ready lumber.

Posted by Caliber on Wednesday June 17, 2009 @ 08:03pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

The article implies that its still cheaper than a real house. I can see the value, but I would wonder about rust with all that steel out of sight out of mind.

Meh, probably easy to solve. Scale it down to bare steel in its current state (perhaps using sandblasting or something cheap and quick) then repaint with a high quality paint. I mean think about it: these containers sit in ocean air and salt seaspray for months (on ships and on docks) with little to no significant rusting. They've probably got that part of the process more or less solid.

They don't go through all those months unscathed, trust me... We have had enough shit shipped via Army boaties (I mean, come on, why the fuck would an Army guy want to drive a boat) that have come back in pretty bad shape.

And look at any car more than a few years old in high snow (and therefore salt) states and you can see that even the best rustoleum isn't going to hold out forever. I'm sure this has all been accounted for and such, so moisture-wicking, rust-protectant, mega-damage solutions are in the works, but with the idea being relatively new, and with little historical data to work with, just seems iffy.

Now there have been red steel houses for at least 3 decades, so I'm sure they have learned a thing or two there. And while trailer homes don't hold up as long as stick houses, they do fairly well.

Just still seems a little iffy

I wonder if they take transport energy into consideration when they do the energy expenditure estimation

This is my first thought as well. I imagine they could get around this by considering the sunk cost of the container as part of its "previous life", so that you are only comparing the current part of its life (aka beginning at the dock then driving to your property) compared to the economic cost of producing new home-ready lumber.

Would be kind of fun to play with the data they have...

Posted by voltaic on Thursday June 18, 2009 @ 01:15pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

They don't go through all those months unscathed, trust me... We have had enough shit shipped via Army boaties (I mean, come on, why the fuck would an Army guy want to drive a boat) that have come back in pretty bad shape.

I have a few questions about this, but I'm not setting you up for something, I just don't know the answers. Does the Army reuse containers pretty efficiently or are many of them always sitting idle and unloaded? I'm sure that mileage correlates to damage and many of these commercial containers have been sitting around in unused stacks for years. Also does the damage tend to be from dings and such (mechanical damage) that then breaches paint and causes rust, or is it even on the pristine areas that shit still gets through?

And look at any car more than a few years old in high snow (and therefore salt) states and you can see that even the best rustoleum isn't going to hold out forever. I'm sure this has all been accounted for and such, so moisture-wicking, rust-protectant, mega-damage solutions are in the works, but with the idea being relatively new, and with little historical data to work with, just seems iffy.

True but cars aren't built with the same expectations as shipping containers. Perhaps boats would be a better example, where as long as the paint is kept up your only problem with rust comes from metal fittings, brackets, etc. mounted unpainted. I don't know dick about these either though, stooph might have some information from periods of dry-docking subs.

Now there have been red steel houses for at least 3 decades, so I'm sure they have learned a thing or two there. And while trailer homes don't hold up as long as stick houses, they do fairly well.

The problem with trailers though is that they are so thin, isn't it? Like bendy sheet-metal thin. And don't they use aluminum? Shipping containers are rigid steel.

Posted by Caliber on Thursday June 18, 2009 @ 03:54pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

They don't go through all those months unscathed, trust me... We have had enough shit shipped via Army boaties (I mean, come on, why the fuck would an Army guy want to drive a boat) that have come back in pretty bad shape.

I have a few questions about this, but I'm not setting you up for something, I just don't know the answers. Does the Army reuse containers pretty efficiently or are many of them always sitting idle and unloaded? I'm sure that mileage correlates to damage and many of these commercial containers have been sitting around in unused stacks for years. Also does the damage tend to be from dings and such (mechanical damage) that then breaches paint and causes rust, or is it even on the pristine areas that shit still gets through?

they are actually reutilized pretty readily, but for storage as much as for shipping. Its actually kind of hard to get them to deployers because units will deploy and then use them as storage containers. Mechanical damage is extremely prevalent, but not any more so than non-military containers I would think. Actually maybe even less so due to the rather rigorous blocking & bracing requirements that go with military equipment. I would be willing to bet that with there being more of a concern for reutilization for shipping and storage, that military personnel are slightly more restricted on how much they beat these things up. Now I have never loaded one on to the boat, but we were there when they off-loaded ours. Looked like any other container operation that I had seen (because everything we see on TV is true). The rust-outs tend to be in low corners of the sheet metal (with there being plenty on fixtures and bracing, but it is far less damaging there). I went out and looked at one we have out back, which was actually in pretty good shape (hasn't been overseas yet), and it even had a small amount here and there (nothing of significance, just a little bubbling and some reddish tint).

So, to answer the questions:
Yes, containers get reused; Yes, they do take a beating; No, the rusting does not seem confined only to damaged areas.

And look at any car more than a few years old in high snow (and therefore salt) states and you can see that even the best rustoleum isn't going to hold out forever. I'm sure this has all been accounted for and such, so moisture-wicking, rust-protectant, mega-damage solutions are in the works, but with the idea being relatively new, and with little historical data to work with, just seems iffy.

True but cars aren't built with the same expectations as shipping containers. Perhaps boats would be a better example, where as long as the paint is kept up your only problem with rust comes from metal fittings, brackets, etc. mounted unpainted. I don't know dick about these either though, stooph might have some information from periods of dry-docking subs.

Actually, that's exactly my point. With ships there is constant maintenance, new paint, guys whose purpose in life it is to run around and look for the nasty. Now I'm sure there are ships that could go decades without rusting through or having some other catastrophic failure even without all that, but people live in houses now that were built in the 1800s. My concern would be that these houses (specifically the ones with siding and drywall) made today may still be around in a hundred years. I'm not saying that they will definitely have problems, only that I would be hesitant about buying or guaranteeing one.

Now there have been red steel houses for at least 3 decades, so I'm sure they have learned a thing or two there. And while trailer homes don't hold up as long as stick houses, they do fairly well.

The problem with trailers though is that they are so thin, isn't it? Like bendy sheet-metal thin. And don't they use aluminum? Shipping containers are rigid steel.

Couldn't really answer those, though a few minutes on google showed there to be a significant disparity in manufacturing methods.

Posted by MadArab on Wednesday June 17, 2009 @ 12:01pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

The article implies that its still cheaper than a real house. I can see the value, but I would wonder about rust with all that steel out of sight out of mind.

I wonder if they take transport energy into consideration when they do the energy expenditure estimation

I'm sure it's coated to prevent rust. Usually most of these sites figure in transportation to the whole thing. Saw something recently that said the carbon footprint of making a Hybrid vehicle is more than the impact of just keeping a fully gasoline powered vehicle running. Something to do with the making of the batteries, how the materials are minded, and the whole refining process and everywhere the stuff has to be shipped to.

Posted by voltaic on Wednesday June 17, 2009 @ 01:07pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

I'm sure it's coated to prevent rust. Usually most of these sites figure in transportation to the whole thing. Saw something recently that said the carbon footprint of making a Hybrid vehicle is more than the impact of just keeping a fully gasoline powered vehicle running. Something to do with the making of the batteries, how the materials are minded, and the whole refining process and everywhere the stuff has to be shipped to.

That used to be true but is no longer the case due to technological advances, economies of scale, the huge jump in the price of oil since 2002, etc. Barring some unforeseen development in hydrogen or other cutting-edge tech, hybrids are going to be the economic answer to any environmental questions for the next 50 years. I'm reading The Hype About Hydrogen right now which basically is a collection of documentation about why hydrogen won't cut it, plus some simple math shows that corn/ethanol won't cut it, and because people are fucking stupid nuclear isn't going to be allowed to cut it. Given current socio-political, technical, and economic realities, hybrids are it for the USA (and in my armchair estimation, probably Canada, India, and Australia also). Other countries should be able to swing other solutions.

Posted by Ghostalker on Thursday June 18, 2009 @ 11:13am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

I'm sure it's coated to prevent rust. Usually most of these sites figure in transportation to the whole thing. Saw something recently that said the carbon footprint of making a Hybrid vehicle is more than the impact of just keeping a fully gasoline powered vehicle running. Something to do with the making of the batteries, how the materials are minded, and the whole refining process and everywhere the stuff has to be shipped to.

That used to be true but is no longer the case due to technological advances, economies of scale, the huge jump in the price of oil since 2002, etc. Barring some unforeseen development in hydrogen or other cutting-edge tech, hybrids are going to be the economic answer to any environmental questions for the next 50 years. I'm reading The Hype About Hydrogen right now which basically is a collection of documentation about why hydrogen won't cut it, plus some simple math shows that corn/ethanol won't cut it, and because people are fucking stupid nuclear isn't going to be allowed to cut it. Given current socio-political, technical, and economic realities, hybrids are it for the USA (and in my armchair estimation, probably Canada, India, and Australia also). Other countries should be able to swing other solutions.

Ya, I watched a doc on oil alternatives and they talked about Hydrogen, and how is nothing more than a bunch of BS they keep blowing up the tree huggers asses to shut them up, and essentially it will never happen. The same with ethanol, or bio fuels. And electric cars. I mean, where do they think all the power to charge them is coming from? Its like those commerical for the whole "clean coal" solution. Im from a coal mining town, and their is nothing clean about it.
Considering alot of current hybrids dont get any better mileage than most compacts, they lot along way to go too.

Posted by Stealth on Monday June 8, 2009 @ 11:11am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

It's a good idea. I know the Army uses them for a number of uses. In Kuwait people where living in them and they used them side by side for field offices. It's amazing what you can fit in one or two of those cans.

Posted by Caliber on Friday June 5, 2009 @ 06:09pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +1  

 

 

]

My child thanks you, but I could give a shit... ;)

Posted by unicron on Monday June 8, 2009 @ 04:58pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

My child thanks you, but I could give a shit... ;)

I'm old, blah blah blah, get off my lawn, Metamucil rocks, blah blah blah.

Posted by MadArab on Monday June 8, 2009 @ 10:10am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

My child thanks you, but I could give a shit... ;)

right... well this was more in line with the whole shipping container room/burying one underground thing that Rub had talked about a while back. Whatever. Jerk!

Posted by Stealth on Monday June 8, 2009 @ 11:10am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

My child thanks you, but I could give a shit... ;)

right... well this was more in line with the whole shipping container room/burying one underground thing that Rub had talked about a while back. Whatever. Jerk!

yeah he was a bit pissy wasn't he.

Posted by Caliber on Monday June 8, 2009 @ 07:36pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

My child thanks you, but I could give a shit... ;)

right... well this was more in line with the whole shipping container room/burying one underground thing that Rub had talked about a while back. Whatever. Jerk!

yeah he was a bit pissy wasn't he.

Actually, unicron pretty much nailed it...

Posted by voltaic on Thursday June 11, 2009 @ 01:18pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Metamucil does rock.

Posted by formatc on Friday June 12, 2009 @ 07:41am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Metamucil does rock.

Sometimes there's nothing better than taking a satisfying dump.

Posted by MadArab on Friday June 12, 2009 @ 08:22am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Metamucil does rock.

Sometimes there's nothing better than taking a satisfying dump.

It's true.

Posted by Caliber on Saturday June 13, 2009 @ 02:22pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Metamucil does rock.

Sometimes there's nothing better than taking a satisfying dump.

It's true.

true or no, I don't consider it conversation worthy... unless your mentally 7 years old

which is probably why we are all talking about it

Have you ever noticed that if you haven't crapped in awhile, if you drink a mountain dew, you would donate a kidney if it meant finding a bathroom nearby

Posted by formatc on Sunday June 14, 2009 @ 07:04am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Metamucil does rock.

Sometimes there's nothing better than taking a satisfying dump.

It's true.

true or no, I don't consider it conversation worthy... unless your mentally 7 years old

which is probably why we are all talking about it

Have you ever noticed that if you haven't crapped in awhile, if you drink a mountain dew, you would donate a kidney if it meant finding a bathroom nearby

Considering myself capable of going much lower than 7 years old mentally, maybe we should refer to this as dookie. Yet to normalize it to a more appropriate age, black coffee from what used to be Jitters in Las Vegas was always good to "jar one loose" on me.

Posted by Caliber on Sunday June 14, 2009 @ 04:48pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Considering myself capable of going much lower than 7 years old mentally, maybe we should refer to this as dookie. Yet to normalize it to a more appropriate age, black coffee from what used to be Jitters in Las Vegas was always good to "jar one loose" on me.

I always wondered why the one over in Sunset station smelled so bad

Posted by formatc on Monday June 15, 2009 @ 06:33am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Considering myself capable of going much lower than 7 years old mentally, maybe we should refer to this as dookie. Yet to normalize it to a more appropriate age, black coffee from what used to be Jitters in Las Vegas was always good to "jar one loose" on me.

I always wondered why the one over in Sunset station smelled so bad

The original on Trop was where I first discovered it. I destroyed the one on Rancho and Cheyenne.

Hey, I wonder if Krux will make a new board: The Dumper Conquests

Posted by MadArab on Tuesday June 16, 2009 @ 09:36am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

I love it when you change boards and the site doesn't show you that a thread has new posts.

Posted by Krux on Tuesday June 16, 2009 @ 12:22pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

I love it when you change boards and the site doesn't show you that a thread has new posts.

It use to and people complained.

Posted by MadArab on Wednesday June 17, 2009 @ 12:52pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

I love it when you change boards and the site doesn't show you that a thread has new posts.

It use to and people complained.

Ok, how about a link tucked away somewhere, like in User Preferences or something, that will display messages tagged as new regardless of what thread they're in... so then we can always look for stuff that we missed from time to time? yea/nay?

Posted by MadArab on Tuesday June 16, 2009 @ 12:33pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

I love it when you change boards and the site doesn't show you that a thread has new posts.

It use to and people complained.

Obviously if it were a public post and changed to something private. But when changed Public to Public and it doesn't show them... makes me sad.

Posted by Stealth on Wednesday June 17, 2009 @ 08:15am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

I love it when you change boards and the site doesn't show you that a thread has new posts.

It use to and people complained.

Obviously if it were a public post and changed to something private. But when changed Public to Public and it doesn't show them... makes me sad.

lets not get it to confusing.. thc has a hard enough time dealing with some of the wierdness as it is.

Posted by MadArab on Wednesday June 17, 2009 @ 09:26am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

lets not get it to confusing.. thc has a hard enough time dealing with some of the wierdness as it is.

Such as the "wierdness" of your spelling!

Posted by voltaic on Monday June 15, 2009 @ 03:13pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Please do not show me that at this point in time.

Posted by unicron on Monday June 15, 2009 @ 08:20pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Please do not show me that at this point in time.

I'm convinced hangover farts/shits are the worse. I guess the cut off is when your own farts offend YOU, you know it's bad.