SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the how-about-a-nice-game-of-breakout? dept.
An Australian engineer has built a robot that can build houses in two
hours[days -Ed.], and could work every day to build houses for people.Human housebuilders have to work for four to six weeks to put a house together, and have to take weekends and holidays. The robot can work much more quickly and doesn't need to take breaks.
Hadrian could take the jobs of human bricklayers. But its creator, Mark Pivac, told PerthNow that it was a response to the lack of available workers — the average age of the industry is getting much higher, and the robot might be able to fill some of that gap.
[...] Hadrian works by laying 1000 bricks an hour, letting it put up 150 houses a year.
It takes a design of the house and then works out where all of the bricks need to go, before cutting and laying each of them. It has a 28-foot arm, which is used to set and mortar the brick, and means that it doesn't need to move during the laying.
Throw in a brick-making bot and the stage is set for guerilla housing construction. Homelessness would become a thing of the past.
Apparently from: perthnow.com; a video is available on youtube.
Original Submission
(Score: 2) by BK on Saturday June 27 2015, @07:51PM
You seem to have a romanticized view of the commons. You're basically saying that people would not be homeless if they had a designated place to pitch a tent. To me that still sunds like homelessness.
Maybe that can work in Miami, but I wouldn't recommend it in January in Boston.
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @09:02PM
You are missing historical and geographic context entirely. Up until relatively recently in history there were no homeless. Don't have a house? Build one wherever there is spare land and trees. This is how it still works in many developing nations. Here every square inch is owned by someone even if it is 20 miles from the nearest speck of civilization. Everything has to be owned even if it is not and wont be used. Guess who can afford to gobble up things they have no need for nor intend to use just to keep others from using it?
(Score: 3, Informative) by BK on Sunday June 28 2015, @03:04PM
[citation needed]
With the local (war)lord's permission. He might just tear it down otherwise. Land ownership has been a thing for quite a while.
Only if close enough to the equator, and only if certain other conditions apply. The shantytowns you will find near cities like Caracas, Port-au-Prince, or Rio de Janerio would mostly not be considered "housing" in most of Europe or North America or even Russia. In parts of the world that have cold winters, the climate cleans out the shantytowns every year or two. To put it another way, if a 3rd world shantytown turned up in Central Park in Manhattan, we'd call it a "homeless encampment".
Maybe it's a local standards thing?
...but you HAVE heard of me.