They bought a bunch of IP from the ORIGINAL Santa Cruz Operation (which became Tarantella) and renamed themselves to "The SCO Group".
SCO != The SCO Group
Caldera started out as a legitimate systems and software vendor. Then their leadership got the bright idea to become a patent troll in Open Source Software.
Frankly, I'm stunned that a multiply bankrupted organization like TSG. They're like fuckin' herpes.
But hey, it's only a valuable college degree that helped him get a cybersecurity job. Not like he's gonna live high on the hog off a job like that. He might as well be working at a gas station!
Look into "insulated concrete forms". You get a 6-8 inches of concrete wall with insulation (bound to a structural webbing) 2-4 inches thick (with thicker options available both for concrete AND for insulation).
But the base wall is rated at R-20.
Also, being a monolithic wall, there's are no "hidden" breaks in the air/vapor seal of the building. Just at windows, doors and utility penetrations. This makes the house far more easier to make airtight. And while mechanical ventilation is required, it requires FAR less energy to regulate the indoor temperature.
Also, as the AC who responded to you mentioned, with the concrete walls, you get a thermal mass effect, evening out the flow of heat through the wall.
A wall will ALWAYS migrate heat. What you want to avoid are major differentials WITHIN the structure of the wall. Because those are areas you'd get condensation. Closer to the outside, you're subject to freeze-thaw, which could damage the wall. Closer to the inside, you get mildew and mold growth. which can render a structure uninhabitable, as well as possible standing water which can damage furnishings.
And wood in modern buildings isn't actually an especially good insulator unless you're going VERY thick. A normal 2x4 (3.5" nominal) stud had a full-thickness R-value of about 4. The R-value of 3.5" batt fiberglass is R-13 to R-15. So when you factor the R-value of a wall, every stud lowers the nominal R-value of the whole wall structure. Basically, depending on how a wall is built, framing can account for 15-25% of a wall. And each % of wall it accounts for can be directly applied to how much it lowers whole-wall R-value. So, assuming batt rating of R-15, and stud rating of R-4, with the framing accounting for 20% of the wall, what's our overall R-value?
On top of this, windows and doors also reduce the whole-wall value.
JUST the concrete in a 6" concrete wall has an R-rating of about 3. However, unlike stick framing, your insulation is applied whole-wall with no interruptions (save for windows, doors and utility penetrations). Usually in one of two ways.
Inside and outside, attached by structural webbing (the majority of the systems I've seen). In the core of the concrete itself (Spider-ties).
Also, it's possible to build the entire building this way. You build an insulation "raft" either for foundations or a combination foundation/basement floor. You build the walls with the traditional ICF stacking. Then water/vapor barrier the outside walls. You can even build concrete roofs (just make sure your architect takes the additional dead-load into account when spec'ing the trusses). Let's see a tornado or hurricane rip off a concrete roof that's fully bonded to the wall structure!
Additionally there are options for various strengths of concrete (bog standard is 3000psi concrete that's backed with #4 and #5 rebar). You could go with higher PSI mixes (there's crazy-strong high-strength concrete up to (and possibly exceeding) 15,000 psi. There are also additives that can be put into the concrete to help control cracking, reduce reactions to things like road salts, improve ductility, and even replace some of the rebar structure.
As for strength and durability.
Here's a bog-standard ICF house that had a guy drive a Ford Excursion into it at high speed..
Standard 3000 psi concrete. He ripped off the stucco and trim and took a few chips out of the underlying concrete wall.
Not saying concrete is a perfect building material. It isn't. And, built CAREFULLY, a wood frame building will share MOST of the benefits you'd see in a concrete building, and at about the same price point.
If you still disagree, that's up to you.
Hope you at least found this info dump enlightening.
And how many "sibiling" structures in the area are the same age.
Sure. If you take extremely good care of a building it'll last a lot longer.
Do you REALLY expect this sort of in-depth care from modern society ON EVERY BUILDING? And do you expect the kind of care in construction from modern "Throw it up FAST!" builders? I invite you to sample multiple seasons of the television productions of one Canadian by the name of Mike Holmes.
Not saying it CAN'T be done. Simply that concrete is just a superior building material in terms of ease of use, longevity (the world's oldest concrete structure is sneaking up on its 1900th birthday) and maintenance.
Right now, the AVERAGE rated lifetime of a stick-built building is 50 years. The average rated lifetime of a WELL BUILT stick-built building is 150 years.
The average rated lifetime of a concrete building is 200 years.
Down in areas where this sort of thing is problematic, consistently, the only houses that generally survive with more than cosmetic damage are concrete structures.
Also, if you're worried about concrete structures being able to move, there are additives which improve can increase a building's ability to sway and withstand cracking. And, at the same time, there are building techniques for isolating such a structure to minimize sway.
Also, you use the term "properly taken care of". Take your 1500 year old example. Now, how many SIMILAR buildings of the same era are still standing. THEN tell me about percentages of buildings that would properly be maintained...
"Yes there is such concrete. It is very expensive..."
So are various high-strength mixes used in high rise construction. And while current processes make it unfeasible outside of academic, experimental testing, there's no guarantee that this will remain that way, as testing is ongoing.
The thing is, properly built, concrete buildings also cost less to heat and cool. So, long-term, a well-designed building will offset its initial carbon footprint though energy savings.
No. It merely means that using natural methods, and the science we have RIGHT NOW, there's no way to control the aging process without paving the way to cancer. Mostly because there's no currently feasible way to control trillions of differentiated cells in an ongoing, medically safe basis.
That doesn't mean that, 100+ years down the road that SOMEONE won't perfect a way to do so.
Actually the Grenfell Tower fire was a combination of flawed materials, flawed installation technique and improper physical plant (for firefighting)..
Instead of ripping out interior walls and redoing insulation that way, they clad the exterior of the building in insulation panels.
Which, all things considered, is a great way of air-sealing and insulating an existing building.
It's just that the panels used weren't properly fire rated. And the panels were installed in a way (leaving a gap between the original exterior and the paneling, meant to facilitate drying in wet conditions) that made the new skin of the building function like a chimney/flue.
Also, the original building had an inadequate fire suppression system. No building-wide alarm. No sprinkler system. Trash dumped all over the building. Dangerous proximity of boilers and gas pipes.
How long do even well engineered wooden structures last before succumbing to rot or burning down?
Monolithic-walled concrete buildings, well insulated, leak less as you only have to worry about deliberate penetrations for air sealing (Windows, doors, utilities). Meaning it's easier to maintain internal environmental control over.
With this sort of control, it's easier to build to standards like Passive House and drastically cut energy input required to regulate.
So while you get the initial carbon blast. Over time, the decreased power requirements for such a structure can offset the initial footprint.
On top of that, there is a class of concrete that actually ABSORBS CO2 of its surroundings.
So concrete production can be carbon-neutral in the short term and a carbon sink in the long term.
Immigration reform is NOT "open borders". That's uncontrolled immigration. And that's what's being fought right now.
People point to 100+ years ago. Forgetting that "free country" also meant you were FREE TO STARVE. Nowadays, there's a massive, EXPENSIVE social infrastructure. And that infrastructure simply CANNOT withstand uncontrolled immigration.
The US does NOT owe the rest of the world a living, or even a better lifestyle.
If people want to immigrate here, DO IT THE RIGHT WAY OR STAY HOME!
Slashdot Mirror
There's exactly NO trust relationship between the delivery personnel and the home owner.
Not every person can (or wants to) install what is, effectively, a security system.
More-over, if there's a fault in the system at any point, it could render EVERY home using the Amazon Key system vulnerable to zero-damage break-ins.
Also, for more paranoid people with firearms, this sounds like a GREAT way to get delivery personnel SHOT.
Wouldn't something like this fall afoul of cartel laws?
It's not like nVidia's putting out desktop processors or anything.
NO! Whose original name was CALDERA.
They bought a bunch of IP from the ORIGINAL Santa Cruz Operation (which became Tarantella) and renamed themselves to "The SCO Group".
SCO != The SCO Group
Caldera started out as a legitimate systems and software vendor. Then their leadership got the bright idea to become a patent troll in Open Source Software.
Frankly, I'm stunned that a multiply bankrupted organization like TSG. They're like fuckin' herpes.
Incarceration isn't just about rehabbing criminals.
Says the AC.
But hey, it's only a valuable college degree that helped him get a cybersecurity job.
Not like he's gonna live high on the hog off a job like that. He might as well be working at a gas station!
Okay, a troll?
No. Absolute disgust.
I know climate change is real and happening.
But conclusions like this help exactly nothing.
It's about as useful to furthering climate science and solutions as the kid from Kindergarten Cop standing up with the "boys and girls" genital line.
Okay the "modern era" is from the 16th Century to now.
Guess what ALSO occupied MOST of that.
The Little Ice Age. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Basically ending in the late 19th or early 20th century.
Hello? *TAP*TAP*TAP* Is this thing on? Anyone home?
So wow. The last 115 years are the only 115 years of the modern era that didn't coincide with the Little Ice Age.
HOLY SHIT! WHAT A CONCEPT!
Actually we know exactly how the Pantheon was built and the type of concrete used.
And yes, we can reproduce it today.
I'm talking mainly stock lumber framing for housing.
Laminated lumber/panels for anything higher than a couple stories.
Just keep in mind, well engineered laminated wood products are expensive in and of themselves too.
That's just it. ICF (insulated concrete forms) ARE. Think "foam cooler" outside, and another inside.
And the houses are generally so tight that mechanical ventilation is required. So, central air and they hold their temperature well.
Look into "insulated concrete forms".
You get a 6-8 inches of concrete wall with insulation (bound to a structural webbing) 2-4 inches thick (with thicker options available both for concrete AND for insulation).
But the base wall is rated at R-20.
Also, being a monolithic wall, there's are no "hidden" breaks in the air/vapor seal of the building. Just at windows, doors and utility penetrations.
This makes the house far more easier to make airtight. And while mechanical ventilation is required, it requires FAR less energy to regulate the indoor temperature.
Also, as the AC who responded to you mentioned, with the concrete walls, you get a thermal mass effect, evening out the flow of heat through the wall.
A wall will ALWAYS migrate heat. What you want to avoid are major differentials WITHIN the structure of the wall. Because those are areas you'd get condensation.
Closer to the outside, you're subject to freeze-thaw, which could damage the wall. Closer to the inside, you get mildew and mold growth. which can render a structure uninhabitable, as well as possible standing water which can damage furnishings.
And wood in modern buildings isn't actually an especially good insulator unless you're going VERY thick.
A normal 2x4 (3.5" nominal) stud had a full-thickness R-value of about 4.
The R-value of 3.5" batt fiberglass is R-13 to R-15. So when you factor the R-value of a wall, every stud lowers the nominal R-value of the whole wall structure.
Basically, depending on how a wall is built, framing can account for 15-25% of a wall. And each % of wall it accounts for can be directly applied to how much it lowers whole-wall R-value.
So, assuming batt rating of R-15, and stud rating of R-4, with the framing accounting for 20% of the wall, what's our overall R-value?
On top of this, windows and doors also reduce the whole-wall value.
JUST the concrete in a 6" concrete wall has an R-rating of about 3. However, unlike stick framing, your insulation is applied whole-wall with no interruptions (save for windows, doors and utility penetrations). Usually in one of two ways.
Inside and outside, attached by structural webbing (the majority of the systems I've seen).
In the core of the concrete itself (Spider-ties).
Also, it's possible to build the entire building this way.
You build an insulation "raft" either for foundations or a combination foundation/basement floor.
You build the walls with the traditional ICF stacking. Then water/vapor barrier the outside walls. You can even build concrete roofs (just make sure your architect takes the additional dead-load into account when spec'ing the trusses). Let's see a tornado or hurricane rip off a concrete roof that's fully bonded to the wall structure!
Additionally there are options for various strengths of concrete (bog standard is 3000psi concrete that's backed with #4 and #5 rebar). You could go with higher PSI mixes (there's crazy-strong high-strength concrete up to (and possibly exceeding) 15,000 psi. There are also additives that can be put into the concrete to help control cracking, reduce reactions to things like road salts, improve ductility, and even replace some of the rebar structure.
As for strength and durability.
Here's a bog-standard ICF house that had a guy drive a Ford Excursion into it at high speed..
https://youtu.be/0B81NZUqT2Q
Images of the damage at this time point: https://youtu.be/0B81NZUqT2Q?t...
Standard 3000 psi concrete.
He ripped off the stucco and trim and took a few chips out of the underlying concrete wall.
Not saying concrete is a perfect building material. It isn't. And, built CAREFULLY, a wood frame building will share MOST of the benefits you'd see in a concrete building, and at about the same price point.
If you still disagree, that's up to you.
Hope you at least found this info dump enlightening.
And how many "sibiling" structures in the area are the same age.
Sure. If you take extremely good care of a building it'll last a lot longer.
Do you REALLY expect this sort of in-depth care from modern society ON EVERY BUILDING? And do you expect the kind of care in construction from modern "Throw it up FAST!" builders?
I invite you to sample multiple seasons of the television productions of one Canadian by the name of Mike Holmes.
Not saying it CAN'T be done. Simply that concrete is just a superior building material in terms of ease of use, longevity (the world's oldest concrete structure is sneaking up on its 1900th birthday) and maintenance.
Right now, the AVERAGE rated lifetime of a stick-built building is 50 years.
The average rated lifetime of a WELL BUILT stick-built building is 150 years.
The average rated lifetime of a concrete building is 200 years.
"Wood is more resistant to wind damage."
Tell that to a hurricane or a tornado.
Down in areas where this sort of thing is problematic, consistently, the only houses that generally survive with more than cosmetic damage are concrete structures.
Also, if you're worried about concrete structures being able to move, there are additives which improve can increase a building's ability to sway and withstand cracking.
And, at the same time, there are building techniques for isolating such a structure to minimize sway.
Also, you use the term "properly taken care of". Take your 1500 year old example. Now, how many SIMILAR buildings of the same era are still standing.
THEN tell me about percentages of buildings that would properly be maintained...
"Yes there is such concrete. It is very expensive..."
So are various high-strength mixes used in high rise construction. And while current processes make it unfeasible outside of academic, experimental testing, there's no guarantee that this will remain that way, as testing is ongoing.
The thing is, properly built, concrete buildings also cost less to heat and cool.
So, long-term, a well-designed building will offset its initial carbon footprint though energy savings.
No. It merely means that using natural methods, and the science we have RIGHT NOW, there's no way to control the aging process without paving the way to cancer. Mostly because there's no currently feasible way to control trillions of differentiated cells in an ongoing, medically safe basis.
That doesn't mean that, 100+ years down the road that SOMEONE won't perfect a way to do so.
Actually the Grenfell Tower fire was a combination of flawed materials, flawed installation technique and improper physical plant (for firefighting)..
Instead of ripping out interior walls and redoing insulation that way, they clad the exterior of the building in insulation panels.
Which, all things considered, is a great way of air-sealing and insulating an existing building.
It's just that the panels used weren't properly fire rated. And the panels were installed in a way (leaving a gap between the original exterior and the paneling, meant to facilitate drying in wet conditions) that made the new skin of the building function like a chimney/flue.
Also, the original building had an inadequate fire suppression system. No building-wide alarm. No sprinkler system. Trash dumped all over the building. Dangerous proximity of boilers and gas pipes.
Basically this was a fuckup waiting to happen.
How long can a concrete and steel building last?
How long do even well engineered wooden structures last before succumbing to rot or burning down?
Monolithic-walled concrete buildings, well insulated, leak less as you only have to worry about deliberate penetrations for air sealing (Windows, doors, utilities). Meaning it's easier to maintain internal environmental control over.
With this sort of control, it's easier to build to standards like Passive House and drastically cut energy input required to regulate.
So while you get the initial carbon blast. Over time, the decreased power requirements for such a structure can offset the initial footprint.
On top of that, there is a class of concrete that actually ABSORBS CO2 of its surroundings.
So concrete production can be carbon-neutral in the short term and a carbon sink in the long term.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
ALMOST as irrelevant as Blackberry!
The Aristocrats!
*BOW*
I didn't say they weren't ALREADY irrelevant you shitstain.
I simply said that they keep inviting it.
No, "per se".
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki...
Seriously.
They're so customer unfriendly it's not even funny.
"Yeah. We know you paid a lot of money for our products. But fuck you! Because we have an "in" with the gub-mint!"
Immigration reform is NOT "open borders".
That's uncontrolled immigration. And that's what's being fought right now.
People point to 100+ years ago. Forgetting that "free country" also meant you were FREE TO STARVE.
Nowadays, there's a massive, EXPENSIVE social infrastructure. And that infrastructure simply CANNOT withstand uncontrolled immigration.
The US does NOT owe the rest of the world a living, or even a better lifestyle.
If people want to immigrate here, DO IT THE RIGHT WAY OR STAY HOME!