On Sunday, September 16, 2001, at 09:00 AM, Eugene Leitl wrote:
On Sun, 16 Sep 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
As were buildings above 5 stories in ancient Rome. Technology moves on. The question is not, "Can 250-story buildings be made safe?" The only question is "How can they be made safe?"
The question is: why should we bother? Tall buildings have intrinsically bad volume to crossection ratio, by definition. Both the static and the infrastructure is vulnerable, so the efforts would be far better spent by decentralizing the society. Monkeys want to see monkeys, fine. We have video projectors and AR avatars for that, and last time I looked most of the fiber was idle.
* Let the builders pay _all_ costs for a structure; taxpayers should not "bail out" either the insurance industry or the builders (or the airlines, on a different note) * If companies and their workers wish to spend 20 minutes riding the series of elevators to the upper floors, cool. (I expect many won't: I saw many people saying they hated working in the WTC...I expect this sentiment will be magnified 100-fold. Some in the Empire State Building were saying on CNN that they want to get out of that building as soon as they can.) * Let the builders/owners also _insure_ their buildings fully for any damage. Had the WTC towers _tipped_ instead of pancaking, the quarter mile swath of destruction would likely have taken down a dozen other buildings. Any construction of a building tall enough to knock over other buildings needs insurance for this. * I think the notion of a "symbol" is silly. John Young called it "vainglory." I have called it Heights of Hubris. I suppose Ayn Rand would call for a national pride effort (as she supported the use of 100,000 slave lives to put an American flag on the moon). * National symbols are not usually good things. Why would libertarians or transnationalists support such things? The best response to terrorism, mayhem, and statism (many states support Osama) is not to foolish rebuilt in the name of "symbolism." Rather, it's to use knowledge wisely. Specifically, to harden and decentralize markets. * Using any coerced funding (taxes, bailouts, subsidies) to rebuld a gaudy and dangerous bauble, one that employees don't even feel comfortable working in, is not rational. In any case, let the insurers and builders do it if they want. But they'd better not use any money taken by force from others. And they'd better have insurance. And they'd better be prepared for a lukewarm response from tenants. And of course they become the Number One repeat target. Wonderful idea.
Tim wrote:
* Let the builders pay _all_ costs for a structure; taxpayers should not "bail out" either the insurance industry or the builders (or the airlines, on a different note)
Of course, that should go without saying. Having said that, though, they will be built.
* I think the notion of a "symbol" is silly.
Reasonable minds may differ.
* Using any coerced funding (taxes, bailouts, subsidies) to rebuld a gaudy and dangerous bauble, one that employees don't even feel comfortable working in, is not rational.
Who has suggested otherwise?
In any case, let the insurers and builders do it if they want.
Now you've got it.
Antheaps are for ants.
Ants do not build cloud piercing towers of adamantine steel and glass, the mind of man does. YMMV. S a n d y
It appears Pakistan has closed the deal: we retire thirty billion in their debt, and they agree to act as our proxy. Damn they're cheap! Personally, I would have held out for a *lot* more... http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/09/16/afghan.prepare/index.htm... -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... --------------------------------------------------------------------
Sandy Sandfort wrote:
Antheaps are for ants.
Ants do not build cloud piercing towers of adamantine steel and glass, the mind of man does. YMMV.
Actually, they do. At least in ant terms they do. Some ants build extremely high (relative to their size) towers, others build in trees, bushes, etc. And they communicate, very well in fact, and use boats, fight wars, farm, herd, have slaves - in short pretty much everything humans do, albeit a bit differently. We can only conjecture about whether they have religion, literature (could be at least oral tradition literature), music, and the like, but I certainly wouldn't doubt it. Although when ants build hi-rises, it's for a good, sound, environmental reason. Harmon Seaver, MLIS CyberShamanix Work 920-203-9633 hseaver@cybershamanix.com Home 920-233-5820 hseaver@ameritech.net http://www.cybershamanix.com/resume.html
Sandy, not to disagree with you, but
Ants do not build cloud piercing towers of adamantine steel and glass, the mind of man does. YMMV.
this describes stolen jumbo-sized Stingers, dual-use at its best. No joke, the mind of man is a hyde and jekyl, at home and overseas. What I like about this list is the complicity it pushes in our pusses, all rouged with technology in the service of mankind being turned on its profiteers. No scientist, no engineer, no programmer, no snotty architect, is not faithfully mirrored in WTC targeting and collapse. Along with our masterpieces of exculpation: well, of course, had we known that it would have been different, or let us rebuild monumentally to deny our seeing more about ourselves in the rubble than bearable. Why not leave the rubble for the unburnished truth it tells? "The Bombed Buildings of Britain" was a best seller several decades ago. Ruins of structures in Britain, Germany and a host of wartorn countries have been stabilized and preserved to show a record of violence too often terribly misrepresented by orderly rows of white crosses, eternal flames and black Vs of 54,000 nyms. No doubt 8 blocks of stinking rotting rubble, stabbed with giant shards of WTC's savaged facade would be a bit too daring for sacred-cowed Manhattan.
In any case, let the insurers and builders do it if they want. But they'd better not use any money taken by force from others. And they'd
"Money taken by force from others" is flowing very freely these days. I'm sure taxpayer money will be used to rebuild the WTC. Even worse, I'm sure billions in taxpayer dollars will be used to bail out the airlines. Apparently all airlines were having a bad year even before Tuesday, and now even the biggest are facing bankruptcy. The capitalist response to this would be to allow them to go bankrupt, because other better-managed leaner meaner airlines would come to take their place, but the American response will be billions of dollars (taken by force from others) in subsidies. My business could use a subsidy too, Uncle Sam!
On Sunday, September 16, 2001, at 11:14 AM, Dr. Evil wrote:
In any case, let the insurers and builders do it if they want. But they'd better not use any money taken by force from others. And they'd
"Money taken by force from others" is flowing very freely these days. I'm sure taxpayer money will be used to rebuild the WTC. Even worse, I'm sure billions in taxpayer dollars will be used to bail out the airlines. Apparently all airlines were having a bad year even before Tuesday, and now even the biggest are facing bankruptcy. The
Anyone who has travelled by plane in the past decade knows exactly why they were and are on the verge of bankruptcy: they converted themselves into low-margin versions of Greyhound buses, with the crowding and chaos and lowlifes we used to see in Greyhound and Trailways bus terminals 30 years ago. I'm not being elitist, just noting the obvious. They bought extremely expensive pieces of machinery (jets), with borrowed money, and then counted on keeping them at 80%+ capacity in order to meet their debt payments. And a dozen of these airlines all set themselves the goal of being "the next Southwest," complete with the InstaTicket cash machines, long lines, and cattle-cars-to-Aushchwitz amenities. "Would you like a second 1.5 ounce bag of pretzels?" Not surprisingly, these cattle cars in the sky face bankruptcy if the flow of cattle slows for even a few days. So now we are to bail them out. Why not bail out Circuit City, whose sales of big screen t.v.s have plummeted? How about Intel, as people quite reasonably put off purchases of 1.7 GHz PCs? How about Ford, where SUV sales have all but stopped? Bailing out the airlines and other industries is state socialism. And as with most cases of socialism, it perpetuates their bad ways and punished those (few) companies who prepared. Besides, the shut-down of several airlines due to bankruptcy liquidation will dump a lot of planes at low prices on the market, will reduce overall capacity, and will help restore the industry to the new lower level of flight reality. I wouldn't want to hold their stocks, though. Nor Boeing's. --Tim May
participants (6)
-
Dr. Evil -
Harmon Seaver -
John Young -
measl＠mfn.org -
Sandy Sandfort -
Tim May