Slashdot Mirror


Meet the 23-Ton X-Wing, the World's Largest Lego Model

First time accepted submitter awaissoft writes "There's big, then there's really big, and then there's colossal, which might be a good word to use when describing a near 46,000-pound Lego X-Wing that made a triumphant debut Thursday in New York's Times Square. The full-size replica, about 42 times the size of the Lego Star Wars X-Wing set available on store shelves, celebrates the debut of Cartoon Network's The Yoda Chronicles, which premieres on May 29 at 8 p.m. It took a small army of 32 Lego master builders, housed in a facility in the Czech Republic, to build the 45,980-pound, or 23-ton, Lego ship. It stands 11 feet high and 43 feet long, and contains more than 5 million Lego pieces."

121 comments

  1. Problem by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Funny

    The wings don't lock into the attack position. My nerd rage knows no bounds.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Problem by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Funny

      wings

      I think you mean S-foils.

      You can turn in your nerd card at the door.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    2. Re:Problem by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think you mean S-foils.You can turn in your nerd card at the door.

      "S-foils, also known as Strike foils or Stability foils, and on occasion as X-foils,[1] were movable wings..."

      You can turn in your engineering card at the door.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    3. Re: Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, I can feel the burn from here.

    4. Re:Problem by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, everybody knows they're wings (that's somewhat inherent in X-Wing).

      Nerds call them S-foils.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    5. Re:Problem by girlintraining · · Score: 2

      Nerds call them S-foils.

      Maybe starwars nerds have no problem with the wide assortment of whimisically named technology in the movies, but engineering nerds like myself are somewhat annoyed by the totally counterintuitive and useless name of 's-foil', which only a starwars nerd would recognize. For the rest of the world, the engineering term wings are a better description. Of course, in about 30 seconds, my computer's going to catch fire and begin vomitting angry noises as it's assaulted by millions of angry Lucas-lovers beating their star wars technical manuals and screaming, but hey. My nerdiness is no less valid than theirs...

      And I say they're WINGS.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    6. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I say they're WINGS.

      They would be wings if their purpose was the generation of lift. It's not, so they're not.

    7. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After hearing Han describe the Kessel run it's hard to believe any science or engineering principles are allowed in the mythology.

    8. Re:Problem by girlintraining · · Score: 1

      They would be wings if their purpose was the generation of lift. It's not, so they're not.

      So during the Battle of Hoth when they were seen in atmospheric flight... they were purely ornamental?

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    9. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can turn in your geek card at the door.

      FTFY. Now hand it over. You (plural) must be new here. Where are we going to stash all of these things?

    10. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wasnt the original term "standard time units" and was changed for the movie? but the unit of distance used has been weasled into explanations like this "he could navigate the kessel run, full of asteroids and other obstacles so well his total distance was the specified number of parsecs". like religious interpretations: ad-hoc and meaningless. picard pwns kirk and even kirk uses sand and cheez-whiz for lube on star trek

    11. Re:Problem by Dahamma · · Score: 5, Funny

      So during the Battle of Hoth when they were seen in atmospheric flight... they were purely ornamental?

      Since they (along with most other spacefaring ships) were shown taking off and landing vertically, yeah, pretty much. Actually, the silly canonical explanation is they were for heat dissipation and "stabilization", just like the TIE fighter's "radiators" (which are clearly useless as airfoils).

      Though given this thread is arguing engineering principles in one of the most unscientific major sci-fi series in recent history, I think we can all safely claim various levels of pathetic nerddom. Sigh.

    12. Re:Problem by Intropy · · Score: 1

      Yeah that's something like the retcon they went with. Lucas has said that the original intent there was for Han to spout fancy-sounding nonsense and Obi Wan to catch him at it. There was no explicit dialog of Obi Wan calling him out, we were just supposed to be able to tell from the actors' expressions. The idea was to further set up Han as this con man type figure and also show that Obi Wan is pretty worldly himself. Unfortunately bad directorial choices about cutting between cameras ruined the effect.

    13. Re:Problem by Xest · · Score: 2, Funny

      This has totally turned from humour into an actual nerd fight.

      I'll get the popcorn.

    14. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which proves again that loserboy nerds are turdbrained. If they're not wings but S-foils, WHY ON FUCKING DANTOOINE ISN'T THE THING CALLED AN X-S-FOIL FIGHTER???

    15. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wrong. It's star wars. who cares ??? Star wars is for children !

    16. Re:Problem by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      wings

      I think you mean S-foils.

      You can turn in your nerd card at the door.

      Logic 101:

      All S-foils are wings. Not all wings are S-foils.

      The clue is in the name "X-wing".

      --
      No sig today...
    17. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's about star wars. That's nothing geeky.

    18. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? there is no KY in the future?

      (for the US-mentally-bound, I don't mean the state of Kentucky)

    19. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what about the Y-Wing, the A-Wing?...and don't get me started on the B-Wing for that matter

    20. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      repeat after me : 'NOT SF'

    21. Re:Problem by liamevo · · Score: 2

      Space != Sci-Fi

    22. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, S-soils are wings, hence X-WING. You're the one who shouldn't have a nerd card.

    23. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They would be wings if their purpose was the generation of lift. It's not, so they're not.

      So during the Battle of Hoth when they were seen in atmospheric flight... they were purely ornamental?

      Just shut up dude!

    24. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it's correct, he describes making a run in "less than 5 parsecs" which is a unit of distance.

      See, the "Kessel Run" is a dangerous path to the broken planet of Kessel, there are many black holes and other celestial phenomena that forces pilots to take a very roundabout path, so Han was bragging that he chose a very short path, inherently much more dangerous than a slower, "longer" pilot.

    25. Re:Problem by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      It is if you haven't visited it yet!

    26. Re:Problem by Tolkienfanatic · · Score: 1

      Well done

    27. Re:Problem by liamevo · · Score: 1

      So is the amazon, or new york, or any other place I've not visited before then.

    28. Re:Problem by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      You both know "wing" is the name of a group of fighters, right? Not just the component?

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    29. Re:Problem by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      I am surprised that the lego pieces at the bottom don't get crushed from the weight.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    30. Re:Problem by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Well take off and landing is one thing (Not needing an airport infrastructure), but for actual battle in an atmosphere, I would expect wings would give you an advantage. Save power on lift and more power towards forward speed. Otherwise you will need the thrust shooting at an angle to keep the ship in the air. Also banking and and turning would be easier too. In space you wouldn't need wings, but stabilizers... however the wings on an X-Wing would be huge for what is needed.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    31. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but engineering nerds like myself are somewhat annoyed by the totally counterintuitive and useless name of 's-foil', which only a starwars nerd would recognize.

      Yeah, yeah. Just put more of them glowy blue rocks in the engine and divert the power from the matter transmitters to our force fields.

    32. Re:Problem by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      To me, it seemed like an easier out would be that this is happening a long time ago in a galaxy far far away, so they don't have identical units.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    33. Re:Problem by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      What's that crunchy-crackly sound? Is it straws being grasped?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    34. Re:Problem by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      What the fuck has that got to do with it? Are you suggesting that X wing fighters fly in an X formation?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    35. Re:Problem by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      It makes more sense to me that you might classify something as a "wing fighter" while referring to the organizational term, rather than the component that the fighter clearly doesn't have.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  2. Glue by GrahamCox · · Score: 1

    I bet it's glued together - no Lego model that heavy could support its own weight. Cheat!

    1. Re:Glue by kcmastrpc · · Score: 5, Funny

      nonsense. the force is holding this one together.

    2. Re:Glue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ya metallic bond of metal skeleton

    3. Re:Glue by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Funny

      nonsense. the force is holding this one together.

      I see no duct tape in the pictures. I think you're mistaken.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    4. Re:Glue by Smauler · · Score: 1

      Weighs 45,979.61 pounds (including bricks and steel infrastructure)

      I don't think glue would cut it with something this size, and the loads it needs.

    5. Re:Glue by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      This is not the glue you are looking for.

    6. Re:Glue by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Never mind that, I want to know who has enough money to buy 22 tons of LEGO. That stuff's more expensive than gold.

      --
      No sig today...
    7. Re:Glue by Misagon · · Score: 2

      From what I have hard, the Lego model makers use solvent to chemically weld the pieces together.

      When they can get a legal permit, they use GBL -- which unfortunately would turn into the drug GHB when you add water. Otherwise they use MEK. GBL is believed by Lego to be less toxic than MEK. (Well.. you are not supposed to drink either, so this is about skin contact and fumes.)

      --
      "We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
  3. It's amazing, by ClaraBow · · Score: 3, Funny

    but does it run CrunchBang Linux?

    1. Re:It's amazing, by dsrg · · Score: 2

      Will it blend?

      --
      "Bees!" - Eddie Izzard
  4. Seems legit. . . by mosb1000 · · Score: 0

    I'm sure this is a real thing someone actually did and not just a poor photoshop someone did to try to increase the traffic to their blog.

    1. Re:Seems legit. . . by mooingyak · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's in Times Square. Not exactly an obscure location.

      Also, totally visible from my desk, which for once made having offices in Times Square not suck.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    2. Re:Seems legit. . . by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      Then may I suggest links to some legitimate press coverage, rather than a link to an obscure blog no one goes to with a low resolution photo?

    3. Re:Seems legit. . . by mooingyak · · Score: 5, Informative

      Dunno what counts for you, but here's a few:

      Cnet

      gizmodo

      Starwars.com

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    4. Re:Seems legit. . . by mosb1000 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yeah, I already googled it. I feel like an idiot.

    5. Re:Seems legit. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's in Times Square. Not exactly an obscure location.

      Also, totally visible from my desk, which for once made having offices in Times Square not suck.

      You have a job where you can see times square from your desk and you say it sucks? I would trade your view for mine of a black topped parking lot and a building on the other side of it for yours any day of the week, so would millions of others who don't get to see times square of all places.

      You need to appreciate what you have.

    6. Re:Seems legit. . . by mooingyak · · Score: 2

      You have a job where you can see times square from your desk and you say it sucks? I would trade your view for mine of a black topped parking lot and a building on the other side of it for yours any day of the week, so would millions of others who don't get to see times square of all places.

      You need to appreciate what you have.

      And you what you have. I would take you up on that trade in a heartbeat.

      The only plus is that I moved to the opposite side of the building so I'm not facing the giant flashing Nasdaq billboard all day long. There are flashing lights everywhere, it's very crowded, and the food is mediocre and expensive. I've worked in a few different parts of Manhattan and this is by far the shittiest.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    7. Re:Seems legit. . . by camperdave · · Score: 1

      It's in Times Square. Not exactly an obscure location.

      Also, totally visible from my desk, which for once made having offices in Times Square not suck.

      You have a job where you can see times square from your desk and you say it sucks? I would trade your view for mine of a black topped parking lot and a building on the other side of it for yours any day of the week, so would millions of others who don't get to see times square of all places.

      You need to appreciate what you have.

      Lucky! The pair of ye. The only view I have is from whatever webcam I happen to browse to.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    8. Re:Seems legit. . . by Zakabog · · Score: 1

      I work near Penn Station and it's pretty terrible but not nearly as bad asTimes Square. The obnoxious lights, the swarms of tourists, the constant noise. I know a few people who work overlooking Times Square and while it's a nice place to visit, you wouldn't want to deal with that every day. Plus to top it all off, everything around there is a tourist trap. There's practically no good food around (it's almost all chains since not many small places can afford the rent) and all of the prices are ridiculously jacked up. The best offices I've seen are around Chelsea and the West Village, and any place that overlooks the park.

    9. Re:Seems legit. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only view I have is of a computer monitor, a TV, a couch, and a fridge. Wouldn't trade it for the world!

    10. Re:Seems legit. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Special mention for Yoda speak.

    11. Re:Seems legit. . . by LBt1st · · Score: 1

      You guys get to look out windows?

    12. Re:Seems legit. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YOU CAN LOOK????

      When I were a lad, we were thrashed within an inch of our lives if we wasted time LOOKING at work, then our manager would stab us to death and dance a merry jig on our graves before cashing in some stock options.

    13. Re:Seems legit. . . by Fuzzums · · Score: 2

      These are the links I was looking for.

      --
      Privacy is terrorism.
    14. Re:Seems legit. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if it's any consolation, I too looked at the blog image and said to myself "That looks like a really bad Photoshop, and why just a single image with no close-ups?" Then I googled and found better images from more convincing sources.

    15. Re:Seems legit. . . by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 1

      All I can see from my window is a flower-strewn meadow, a hill, a forest, a wind turbine, an orchard. And it's all mine.

      Times Square? Black-top parking lot? You can keep them.

      --
      I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
    16. Re:Seems legit. . . by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      Yes but the picture is what pros would call a bad picture: to give a relative idea of the height / width of the thing, they should have included a man for instance into he picture..

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    17. Re:Seems legit. . . by laejoh · · Score: 1

      Definitively photoshopped!

    18. Re:Seems legit. . . by camperdave · · Score: 2

      You guys get to look out windows?

      Yeah. Corporate policy. Everyone is forced to use Windows.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    19. Re:Seems legit. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hello, this is the government. We're taking your land with adverse possession. We've given you fair market value though for your troubles, which is whatever we deem to be fair. Thank you.

    20. Re:Seems legit. . . by Misagon · · Score: 1

      It is made from large Lego bricks ... made from Lego bricks.

      I also thought that the picture in the article was photoshopped, until I saw close-up pictures of each "brick" being jagged.

      --
      "We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
    21. Re:Seems legit. . . by mooingyak · · Score: 1

      The best offices I've seen are around Chelsea and the West Village, and any place that overlooks the park.

      We only moved to Times Square about 6 months ago. We were in Chelsea before that, and I absolutely miss that office.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    22. Re:Seems legit. . . by Molochi · · Score: 1

      Sounds kinda like the Adobe, Microsoft, and (coming soon) NSA campuses in Lehi. Less forest and more snowcapped mountains though.

      --
      "The Adobe Updater must update itself before it can check for updates. Would you like to update the Adobe Updater now?"
  5. A bit blocky by michaelmalak · · Score: 1

    Looks blocky, like they were modeling after a small Lego model kit rather than an X-Wing as portray in the movies.

    1. Re:A bit blocky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      That is exactly what they did. It is a scaled up model of Lego set 9493. Too bad it wasn't the UCS that came out this year....

    2. Re:A bit blocky by LBt1st · · Score: 2

      I was disappointed by this as well. It's more like a replica of a replica. I was hoping they made something more detailed.

  6. How much did Disney pay? by msobkow · · Score: 2, Funny

    How much did Disney pay for this blatant slashvertisement?

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:How much did Disney pay? by kcmastrpc · · Score: 2

      Slashdot doesn't need any credits... move along.

    2. Re:How much did Disney pay? by ThePeices · · Score: 2

      How much did Disney pay for this blatant slashvertisement?

      Disney paid $0.00

      Lego X-Wing models are nerdy enough to warrant mention on Slashdot.

      Sorry if this doesnt fit into your conspiracy theory way of thinking, but thems the breaks.

    3. Re:How much did Disney pay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They built an X-Wing (model) out of Legos. Shut your fucking face and let the rest of us enjoy it.

    4. Re:How much did Disney pay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i am not a fan of star wars.. but this is fucking awesome. wish i lived closer so i could see it in person.

    5. Re:How much did Disney pay? by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      Huh?
      Isn't this "news for nerds?"
      Don't nerds like legos AND Star Wars?
      Wouldn't nerds want to know about the world's largest lego replica?
      Why does everything have to be a "slashvertisement?"

    6. Re:How much did Disney pay? by cinky · · Score: 2

      Let me explain to you how this works: you see, the corporations finance Slashdot, and then Slashdot goes out... and the corporations sit there in their... in their corporation buildings, and... and, and see, they're all corporation-y... and they make money.

    7. Re:How much did Disney pay? by polar+red · · Score: 1

      Don't nerds like legos AND Star Wars?

      I *DON'T* like star wars. It's not SF, it's barely fantasy. it has a paper-thin plot. The only thing it's got going for it is the FX.

      --
      Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    8. Re:How much did Disney pay? by msobkow · · Score: 1

      It was the plug for the new show that had me thinking "slashvertisement".

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    9. Re:How much did Disney pay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well aren't you the most special nerd at convention.

    10. Re:How much did Disney pay? by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 1

      I *DON'T* like star wars.

      Perhaps you are on the wrong website.
      You know, THEY say that there is an exception to every rule (Except rule 34 obviously), perhaps you are that exception.

      --
      If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
    11. Re:How much did Disney pay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They built an X-Wing (model) out of Legos.

      No they didn't.

  7. Link to a real website. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is quite possibly the most pointless blogspam ever. At least provide a link to a reputable outlet.

  8. What a waste except to those who built it by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

    As mentioned it's been glued or a metal substructure. At 23 tons it's no easy piece
    to move; displaying it will always be an effort and great expense. I see it being
    very easy to break (not being involved in it's construction) as it has a large
    unsupported extension.

    Not wishing to offend those who enjoyed building it I'm sure, but what's to become of it.
    Only place it could go would be to a Lego museum and LO I find there's one in the planning
    http://www.salon.com/2013/03/24/danish_architecture_firm_tapped_to_design_worlds_first_lego_museum_partner/

  9. This pathetic blog link got greenlit? by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 5, Informative

    Seems the editors couldn't figure out submitter "awaisoft" is a pissant blogger on the awaisoft.com domain
    There have been many articles about this around the Net today, and o fall of them, this one is by far the worst.
    For fuck sake, the entire blog posting was copied and pasted verbatim into the summary.

    Here's a real article over at PopSci with many pictures, a video and a good many more words about the project and what went into it.
    http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-05/world%E2%80%99s-largest-lego-model-life-size-x-wing-video

    1. Re:This pathetic blog link got greenlit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your link doesn't work.

    2. Re:This pathetic blog link got greenlit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, it does

    3. Re:This pathetic blog link got greenlit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, it doesn't

    4. Re:This pathetic blog link got greenlit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes it doesn't

    5. Re:This pathetic blog link got greenlit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It goes to an ad, which might be viewed as "not working" given the world's attention span.

    6. Re:This pathetic blog link got greenlit? by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. I don't know what everyone's geekasming about its a scale model of a much smaller lego model. Now if they'd based on the Hays X-Wing manual then I'd be interested :D

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    7. Re:This pathetic blog link got greenlit? by msobkow · · Score: 1

      Now that's an article that doesn't slashvertise Disney's new show. It's informative, focuses on the Lego company instead of Disney, and was an enjoyable read.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    8. Re:This pathetic blog link got greenlit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it does!

  10. I've got a bad feeling about this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not going to bullseye any womp rats in this.

    1. Re:I've got a bad feeling about this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not going to bullseye any womp rats in this.

      Of course not. For that, you would need a full-sized Lego model of a T-16.

  11. Scaled up, not full sized by Chuckstar · · Score: 1

    It's actually not a full-sized X-wing, but a scaled up Lego X-wing, with the little bumps of the Lego blocks and all.

    Frankly, I think it's actually more fun this way than if it were a full-scale replica out of Lego. There's something "meta" about building a big Lego piece out of smaller Lego pieces.

    1. Re:Scaled up, not full sized by camperdave · · Score: 2

      It's actually not a full-sized X-wing, but a scaled up Lego X-wing, with the little bumps of the Lego blocks and all.

      Frankly, I think it's actually more fun this way than if it were a full-scale replica out of Lego. There's something "meta" about building a big Lego piece out of smaller Lego pieces.

      Yeah, except I can't find a white 4 block anywhere. Someone's used them all.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    2. Re:Scaled up, not full sized by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I can't find a white 4 block anywhere.

      'twas ever thus.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  12. Pictures by Faux_Pseudo · · Score: 1

    Is there a source of pictures of it that actually show some detail and aren't messed up by a filter?

  13. yes, my rotary-wing helicopter by decora · · Score: 1

    agrees with you. who would use the term 'rotor' or 'blades'?

  14. Biggest LEGO model, nah. by batwingTM · · Score: 2

    This is pretty awesome, but Largest LEGO model, no way
    LEGO House

    --
    Leg Godt!
    1. Re:Biggest LEGO model, nah. by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · · Score: 2

      Actual sense of scale here: House Built From LEGO Helps that it had a flat roof and mostly bare walls on its breadbox shape. But still that's a heckuva lot of bricks that went into the thing.

    2. Re:Biggest LEGO model, nah. by Smauler · · Score: 1

      It's been knocked down now - there was no planning permission for the house, and they could not find someone who would pay 50,000 pounds to get it anywhere.

      Seems a shame, really... you'd have thought some rich bastard would have taken it.

  15. When it's time to take it apart... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They should auction off the rights for one person to destroy it. Oh man. Can you imagine being 8 years old again and being allowed to thrash and kick that thing? Pure joy.

  16. It's rediculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    seriously

  17. Macrostructures and legolike bricks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think this has been mentioned elsewhere, but if you could design a remote lego-brick-making-from-local-materials-and-then-lego-stacking robotic device or devices, & then drop the system off somewhere (Mars, the moon, etc.) in No Time At All (O.K., a year, five years, etc.) you could build a moderate-sized shelter complex. Really, the small size of the bricks just allows you to add more architectural detail, and the small size of the bricks also might = smaller robotic devices to build your moon pyramid. We're already printing buildings, so I guess my point is that the size of the brick is immaterial if you aren't in a huge hurry.
    Could something like this robotic device be built and flown? If you know the destination's soil composition, have access to power (and water), yes, probably.
    Worth doing? Depends. Enough devices like this and you could prebuild arcologies (or monuments to your bad self) all over the solar system without ever leaving home.

  18. This is why I read slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The "editors" bring the topics, and the comments provide the actual information. If you want it the other way around, Ars Technica is good. Slashdot is crowdsourcing of a sort, and in this sense works really well...

  19. Two records in one: by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Funny

    The strongest girlfriend repellant ever made.

  20. That's not the explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This isn't a "Corporations are ebil" rant from the OP, this is a "I'm so smart, I can see what you can't, you morons" rant.

  21. Crappy photo by polyp2000 · · Score: 1

    Why does everything these days have to be photographed with that shitty instagram 70's polaroid look ? its not cool ! Bring back decent photography pleas - i want to see some detail on that X-wing

    --
    Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
  22. Flying colors by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    Must be nice to have an infinite supply of the right colors.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    1. Re:Flying colors by Molochi · · Score: 1

      Well they used them all for this model.

      --
      "The Adobe Updater must update itself before it can check for updates. Would you like to update the Adobe Updater now?"
  23. Obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It will never fly.

    {^_-}

  24. Where in Times Square? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I work near Bryant Park and would love to take a walk over and see it if I can find out its exact location. It must be indoors somewhere there, it rained cats and dogs in midtown Manhattan yesterday.

  25. Crappy Antialiasing by VorpalRodent · · Score: 4, Funny

    Let me just say that they are doing a horrible job at antialiasing. I looked at those pictures, and there's jaggies all over.

    --
    Take it to the limit, everybody to the limit, come on, everybody fhqwhgads.
    1. Re:Crappy Antialiasing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh... this was modded insightful? Clearly this is a joke. A funny one even!

  26. Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some people just need to get a job.

  27. Lego Ship by Dabido · · Score: 1

    It's small compared to the size of the lego ship they had to make to ship it from Europe to NY.

    --
    Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)