Slashdot Mirror
Domain: wirednewyork.com
Stories and comments across the archive that link to wirednewyork.com.
Comments · 14
-
Re:I blame price gouging by New York parking garag
They also say "10 million accounts". I have a hard time seeing how 10 million different people parked in NYC in a one month period (21 Jan to 25 Feb).
Yep. Too big a number. Dwarfs the number of metered parking spots in the city, which is 62,000 according to this page: http://www.parking.org/media/overview-of-the-us-parking-industry.aspx
Congestion pricing studies from a few years ago talked about 800,000 cars per day entering Manhattan. http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6044 But most of those would be the same account over and over. And the number of cars entering the other boroughs would presumably be lower than that. Certainly there is less demand for commercial parking garages outside of Manhattan.
-
Re:Say goodbye to the cats
In New York City, we have a bad pigeon problem around the New York Public Library* building on 42nd St. and 5th Ave. and the neighboring Bryant Park.
A falconer convinced the Bryant Park Restoration Corporation to let him try a hawk. http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3004&page=1
It seemed to work for a while. Then the hawk attacked some lady's chihuahua, and they discontinued the experiment.
I don't think it would have worked anyway, since the hawk was trained to just scare the pigeons and chase them away.
If they had a hawk really hunting and eating the pigeons, that might have done it. Personally, I would have favored that solution, since the pigeons have made it impossible to sit comfortably on the library steps any more.
It's too bad about the chihuahua but you have to make choices.
*Recently renamed the Schwarzman Building after the billionaire who gave the library $100 million.
-
Here is another one...in 1936
-
Re:Discounting the price of a book?I've always wondered why Americans (I assume you're American) are so anti-French, especially when they helped you get independence from Britain etc, right?
I can think of a few reasons why some Americans may have Anti-French feelings
Thousands and thousands of non-French servicemen gave their lives to help France fight for it's independence after being quickly taken over by the Nazis - when the latest war started in Iraq, how did young French people show their "support" for all of those dead servicemen? By painting swastikas on their tombs and overturning their headstones.
I don't claim these are great or even reliable sources, just the first ones that turned up in a casual Google search. -
Re:sucks to be you if you live in the desert
Urban life is inherently more energy-efficient than sprawl. This should be intuitive. Even if New Yorkers were to live in apartments of the same square footage as the freestanding houses they're foregoing in the countryside, economies of scale would predict conservation due to shared HVAC apparatus and smaller surface area to volume ratio, for example. Then there's the fact that you don't need a car nearly as much when your drugstore, grocery store, and stylist are all in the lobby of your building.
This guy describes it much better than I ever could. Yeah, the source is biased, but read the article for yourself and judge the points based on their merits. I think you'd find it difficult to argue. -
Re:damn you, Scuttlemonkey!!!!
Your post is the one containing lies, deception, manipulation and general nonsense and unfounded claims, hkmwbz.
Let's go over them one at a time, shall we?
No steel/concrete skyscraper has ever had huge planes smash into them.
Ignoring for just a moment that that statement is patently untrue, the fact is that the WTC towers were specifically designed to be able to withstand a strike from an airliner. The airliner cited is a 707, the largest airliner of the day, and only slightly smaller than the 757s that did strike. At any rate, the towers did in fact weather the strike just fine, only swaying back and forth a few feet.
Straw man. The steel didn't melt. It was hot enough to significantly weaken it (ask a blacksmith), but not to melt it.
Wrong. The steel in question was rated ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F (1100C) for several hours. There is simply no way that a kerosene fire could raise the temperature of the steel that high. And yet, WTC1 collapsed in only 102 minutes, while WTC 2 collapsed in only 56 minutes.
No steel/concrete building has had the top part partly separated from the rest of the building, only to give in and fall down on the floors below.
Wrong again. During the Madrid skyscraper fire (which burned far hotter and far longer than the either WTC tower), the steel warped enough to send the top ten floors crashing down upon the rest of the structure. However, the building did not collapse, and even managed to continue supporting a massive construction crane on the roof.
Yes. It was severely damaged by falling debris from the other buildings.
Wrong a third time. Check this map to see the relative placement of the buildings. Building 7 was never hit with more than incidental debris, yet, it collapsed sudddenly and completely into its own footprint, precisely like the twin towers. Perhaps you're thinking of WTC 6, which stood right next to the north tower, and was severely damaged by falling debris (two gigantic holes punched down enitrely through the structure). Problem is...despite this horrrendous damage, WTC 6 continued to stand until it was demolished during the cleanup.
If you are implying that "explosions" == "bombs", then you are, frankly, a fucking moron. Many things can cause explosions.
I call bullshit. List your candidates.
If you think that "looks like" == "actually is", then you are, frankly, a fucking moron.
Perhaps you'd like to give your explanation of what the firefighters witnessed, then.
When a building collapses, there is lots of air which suddenly finds itself in a lot less space, so it finds its ways out, resulting in what people observed - puffs of smoke, or puffs of dust, debris, etc.
First of all, you're talking about a different point than the parent. Since both points are important, I'll address them both (yours first).
I assume you're referring to the jets of gas and dust that were observed appearing at regular locations down the side of the building during the collapse. Here's where your explanation falls flat:- If the jets were nothing more than escaping air, how is it that they were filled with dust and smoke, despite the inconvenient fact that there was no damage whatsoever on those lower floors? Where could that smoke and dust have come from?
- How is it that the jets were so regular in appearance, some even visible from two sides of the tower simultaneously? If this was just pressurized gas finding a way out, as you assert, once it had blown one window, the pressure would decrease, pr
-
Re:Assumptions which also explain other odd facts.
That's easy. The Madrid building didn't have the fireproofing insulation blown off of ten floors worth of steel supports.
The ASTM E119 certified steel comprising the structure of the WTC twin towers was able to take temperatures of 1100 degrees Celsius for several hours while maintaining structural integrity, without the benefit of 'fireproofing insulation'...at least, that's the U.L's opinion...and I'm inclined to trust them.
The jet fuel burning in the WTC could not have even come close to softening or annealing the structural steel of the WTC, let alone in as little time as 85 minutes. Please look here for an excellent mathmatical proof of this.
One plane hit near the center of the tower, the other farther off center. The offset was of little ultimate consequence given the load-bearing nature of the open floor plan.
Sorry, but I'm not buying that. It's farfetched enough to believe an airliner crash (which the towers were specifically designed to withstand) plus weak kerosene fires burning in an oxygen-poor environment could somehow make every load-bearing member fail simultaneously, but expecting another airliner crash in a different part of the other tower could somehow yield the same perfectly symmetrical collapse is beyond incredulity.
It seems obvious that it was a less robust design
Really? 'Seems obvious'?
If you've done any research into WTC 7 you would know that due to it a) being built straddling an existing electrical substation, and b) being Mayor Guiliani's doomsday bunker (a $15 million project), a command post from which to operate in case of a total infrastructure breakdown, it was one of the most (if not the most) overdesigned structures on the planet.
that was hit with about 50 stories of debris from the neighboring tower's collapse; have you been to ground zero? Building 7 and Building 6 were both heavily damaged by debris from the north tower.
Apparently you haven't...try checking out this map:
You'll see that WTC 7 is significantly farther away from the nortrh tower than WTC 6. In fact, WTC 6 stands directly between the north tower and WTC 7.
So how exactly could '50 stories of debris' jump out from the north tower, over WTC 6, and strike WTC 7?
The answer is: it couldn't, and it didn't. There are no reports of more than incidental debris from the north tower striking WTC 7. In contrast, WTC 6 had two huge holes punched straight through it from top to bottom, but remained standing until it was demolished during the site cleanup.
I don't know where you got your '50 stories of debris' information, but we'd really like to see a link. This assertion runs contrary to all other observations of the event.
I vehemently disagree with your theories on several grounds, the most obvious being that no conclusive evidence has emerged to show any government involvement in this matter
What we have here is conclusive evidence that the incidents surrounding 9/11 did not occur in the fashion described by the official version of events. Since that version was researched, verified, and published by our government, they are, by definition, involved in the matter. QED.
your theories are the ravings of a crackpot
That's hardly helpful. I could call your theories the ravings of a self-deluded Polyanna, but that wouldn't be helpful, either.
What is helpful is stimulating intelligent, informed, honest, and rational debate of the subject. I was once like you....I believed the 'official version of events' unquestioningly. When I was introduced to this information by a friend, I was overwhelmingly skeptical, so I decided to go about debunking the CT claims in favor of the official version.
However, the -
looks like earthquakes aren't the only issue...
Well, if earthquakes don't work, then mothernature will surely find another way. Check this thread out. Sinking or flooding are possibilities too!
-
Red states love them taxes
Funny that this list is mostly conservative states. Kinda ties well into the hypocrasy of Republicans and taxes and the taker-giver state reality.
Interesting diagram detailing population distribution of the US and voting. The Hannity's of the world love to show you a mostly-red map of the US while neglecting to mention the sparser populations in geographically larger red states:
Voting Map -
Re:still no .xxx ?
I don't understand why xxx hasn't been approved yet. Followed by a mandate that pornographic sites must use
And how, exactly, would you enforce such a mandate? If you think that laws requiring porn sites to be in
Not to mention, of course, the question of what is pornographic. Sex education sites? Sites with information about sexual diseases? (For both of those, with pictures? Without pictures?) LGBT community discussion sites? Archives of alt.sex.stories? A usenet server that carries the alt.sex groups, along with the rest of usenet? An ebay auction for a sex toy? An ebay auction for something that could equally be used in a sexual or a medical situation? Slashdot? (After all, trolls post text porn, and links to goat.cx.) An IRC network that happens to have channels where users share porn? Even if its only a small percentage of the channels, and most users don't encounter them?
So, the short answer is, a mandatory -
This reminds me . . .
-
Re:Meanwhile, in France...
Well, if you're going to be like that, I guess we'll have our statue back.
It's not funny, it's a troll, and should be modded as such.
-
times square, new york city
my home (thus the name)
geek angle:
pay homage to the great diode gods of commerce
bonus geek angle: get caught on 20 different cameras, wind up in 20 different govt databases lol
here's one
-
Prolonged, uncontrolled fire & structural dama
In the History Channel's WTC documentary, they showed large backup generators whose purpose was to briefly power the entire complex in an outage. There were also large tanks of diesel fuel to supply the generators. I'd say it's likely that setup was in 7 WTC or one of the other ancillary buildings.
And now a quick Google search reveals this: Engineers Suspect Diesel Fuel in Collapse of 7 World Trade Center.
~Philly
