Slashdot Mirror


Robotic Mini-sub to Inspect NYC Water System

jhiv writes: "The Delaware Aqueduct, one of the world's longest water tunnels, may be developing potential serious leaks, according to this article in the New York Times (free registration). One leak has already created a pond and a stream with a flow of a million gallons per day. New York city officials plan to use a robotic mini-submarine being developed by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution to inspect the interior of the 13 foot diameter tunnel. Previous repairs required four deep sea divers to spend almost a week at 700 feet pressure to fix a leaking valve. Ironically, if the tunnel is repaired, the wetlands created by leaks will be destroyed, causing a potential EPA violation. Additional coverage can be found here and here." NYC has been building a third major water tunnel to take the load off the first two - but it's a fifty-year project.

228 comments

  1. This is some VERY cool stuff! by nbvb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's simply amazing to me how much we take for granted our water supply....

    That said, I hope there's still water to run through the aqueduct come May.... we're having a SERIOUS drought condition here in the Northeast...

    In fact, both Jersey and New York (ever notice how Jersey is the only "New" state that can be named without the "new"? Anyway...) Anyway, both Jersey and New York are in a "Stage 3" water emergency.... and it's only early March!

    This is gonna be a bad one.... let's hope the little yellow submarine finds some secret cache of a few billion gallons :-)

    --NBVB

    1. Re:This is some VERY cool stuff! by Sebastopol · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I agree completely, we do take it for granted. In northern california, sprawl is using up the water supply, but no one seems to be putting the brakes on. of course, in Cali, we were already had to deal with rolling blackouts, but at least we had water.

      ...same goes for New Jersey as you said. they have no water table left due to massive over-development.

      that's why we need legislators willing to stand up to mega-suburb developers who don't care in the slightest about resource OR public transportion concerns. just build build build ... a beige landscape.

      --
      https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    2. Re:This is some VERY cool stuff! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what about that big pond just off the east coast?

    3. Re:This is some VERY cool stuff! by Telastyn · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      I belive (being born and raised in south jersey) that it's because Jersey (the original) is a little crapshoot island in the English Channel known for its cattle (hence Jersey Cow, the black spotted ones).

      York is a fairly large UK city, as is Hampshire.

    4. Re:This is some VERY cool stuff! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Water from the Atlantic off the Jersey shore is fundamentally undrinkable. After all the desalinization, distilliation and purification needed to make it fit for human consumption, it would probably run you about $2/gallon.

    5. Re:This is some VERY cool stuff! by Fred+Ferrigno · · Score: 1

      A little bit of Googling showed that York is a city in a North Yorkshire, whereas Hampshire is a county.

      Another useless bit of information brought to you by a few seconds of boredom and Google.

    6. Re:This is some VERY cool stuff! by einstein · · Score: 1
      (hence Jersey Cow, the black spotted ones).


      actually, the black spotted one is a holstein, the jersey is smaller and tan, with maybe some white on it's lower abodomen and legs. for those of you wondering,Yes, I was in 4-H. bugger off.
      ---

    7. Re:This is some VERY cool stuff! by Latent+IT · · Score: 2

      I wish that would be enough. The city and surrounding areas pull a billion gallons a day. Maybe the little submarine will find a secret cache of a trillion gallons? ;p

    8. Re:This is some VERY cool stuff! by kaimiike1970 · · Score: 1

      Not to mention Mexico...

      --


      Do a google search before posting.
    9. Re:This is some VERY cool stuff! by Sebastopol · · Score: 2

      Once again, throwing laws at symptoms only makes people pissy, belligerent, and ready to find ways to circumvent the laws

      wait second here: i said we should have laws about sprawl, and you said we should have laws telling home buyers to screw. so we're both suggesting laws, yes?

      although, the problems that drive people out of cities are huge other discussion.

      --
      https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    10. Re:This is some VERY cool stuff! by Hob+Gadling · · Score: 1

      The same problem is occuring in So. Cali as well, with the new developments going up in the Thousand Oaks area, not to mention Glendale, Marina Del Rey, San Bernadino, etc...

      The difference between the demands on the water system and the demands on the power system, is that the power system was affected by artificial scarcity (created by out-of-state power generators, Enron, PG&E's parent corp, whathaveyou), while the water scarcity is an actual shortage.

      Of course if Enron had had it's way, then they would've been selling us the *water* we drink as well. Good thing I only drink Jolt ;)

      --
      "You can't fight in here, this is the War Room!"
    11. Re:This is some VERY cool stuff! by Telastyn · · Score: 1

      Indeed! My appologies!

      *hang head in shame*

    12. Re:This is some VERY cool stuff! by Hob+Gadling · · Score: 1
      Water from the Atlantic off the Jersey shore is fundamentally undrinkable. After all the desalinization, distilliation and purification needed to make it fit for human consumption, it would probably run you about $2/gallon.


      ...and that would fit just fine for those that believe in the "genius" of capitalism, i.e. you'd have to start paying for the water, in addition to the power, the gas, the use of the roads, etc.

      Next thing you know they'll be selling clean, purified ,all-natural "Spring-Air" to people living in LA, Houston and other heavily polluted cities.
      --
      "You can't fight in here, this is the War Room!"
    13. Re:This is some VERY cool stuff! by FarHat · · Score: 1

      Suburbs: Where they cut down the trees and name the streets after them.

      --
      At the intersection of computation and biology.
    14. Re:This is some VERY cool stuff! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Most of the urban parts of California never had any water to begin with.

      The main issue isn't really supply, but allocation. Right now, most of the water is used for agricultural purposes. So we have a conflict between people who live in cities in the middle of a desert verus people with farms in the middle of a desert.

    15. Re:This is some VERY cool stuff! by TheOnlyCoolTim · · Score: 2

      A lot of people in Jersey actually use bottled water for any drinking or cooking. I was at a relative's house and she was cooking spaghetti. She poured a bunch of Poland Spring into the pot to boil. I looked at her and told her she was crazy to use that expensive stuff instead of tap water, but it turns out that the tap water in parts of Jersey has been linked to causing cancer....

      So it might not be that expensive to start up desalinization anyway compared to buying Poland Spring in bulk.....

      Tim

      --
      Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.
    16. Re:This is some VERY cool stuff! by D.A.+Zollinger · · Score: 1

      just build build build ... a beige landscape

      That's not so bad, after all, the color of the universe is beige.

      --
      I haven't lost my mind!
      It is backed up on disk...somewhere...
    17. Re:This is some VERY cool stuff! by mr_death · · Score: 2
      In northern california, sprawl is using up the water supply, [...]

      Oh please -- people use water, not sprawl! A person will use the same amount of water for cooking, drinking, and bathing, whether they live in an apartment or on five acres in the "sprawl". About the only difference I can see is that the evil sprawl person might water their lawn, marginally driving up water usage.

      Short of California closing its borders to new residents, you're always going to have a water problem. Millions of people are contesting for water in a desert, and that is not a happy situation

      --
      It's Linux, damnit! Pay no attention to renaming attempts by self-aggrandizing blowhards.
    18. Re:This is some VERY cool stuff! by LinuxInDallas · · Score: 1

      I've done the same thing here in the Dallas area. In Plano, where I live, the water tastes like crap when the warm weather sets in. It may not be unhealthy, but I'd rather not use it.

      I wonder what the real cost of "water from the sea" would be if we were forced to use it on a grand scale. It's probably like the electric car debate...it'll become affordable once we are all forced to use it.

    19. Re:This is some VERY cool stuff! by Alibi · · Score: 1

      That reminds me of cans of Perri-air in Spaceballs; President Skroob kept a stock of them since the air on his planet was running low.

    20. Re:This is some VERY cool stuff! by Rasta+Prefect · · Score: 2

      About the only difference I can see is that the evil sprawl person might water their lawn, marginally driving up water usage.

      Actually, being a resident of the sprawl, I'd say that around here there are people that probably dump as much water on their lawn as they use for all other purposes combined. Keeping a large lawn green in the middle of the summer takes quite a bit of water, particularly if its a dry year.

      --
      Why?
    21. Re:This is some VERY cool stuff! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh please -- people use water, not sprawl! A person will use the same amount of water for cooking, drinking, and bathing, whether they live in an apartment or on five acres in the "sprawl". About the only difference I can see is that the evil sprawl person might water their lawn, marginally driving up water usage.

      A few hundred gallons a week per yard does not "marginally" drive up usage. IT nearly triples it!

    22. Re:This is some VERY cool stuff! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Oh please -- people use water, not sprawl!

      Guns don't kill people, people kill people ;-)

      Short of California closing its borders to new residents, you're always going to have a water problem. Millions of people are contesting for water in a desert, and that is not a happy situation.

      What about agricultural needs. I've heard there are some Californian farmers who have the gall to grow rice in that desert...

    23. Re:This is some VERY cool stuff! by dale_cooper · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but that's naive. The only city in the US that has been repsonsible about growth is Portland. It has the strong community voice calling for keeping rural areas rural AND a legislated urban growth boundary that ensures the people's desires are carried out.

      Portland has plenty of sprawl, but it is slowly getting more dense around the transit corridors destined to be urban centers. Portland is a great place to live, and if you don't like it, move to LA and enjoy suburban bliss in the San Fernando Valley. Just don't try to breathe.

      Here in Seattle land trusts are buying up large portions of the Cascades to keep them undeveloped, and we have a (less effective) growth boundary. Both approaches are needed to ensure growth happens at a manageable pace, without sprawl.

    24. Re:This is some VERY cool stuff! by mpe · · Score: 2

      Oh please -- people use water, not sprawl! A person will use the same amount of water for cooking, drinking, and bathing, whether they live in an apartment or on five acres in the "sprawl". About the only difference I can see is that the evil sprawl person might water their lawn, marginally driving up water usage.

      Far more scope for unnoticed leaks in a system covering 5 acres of land than with a single building. Leaks in drinking water distribution systems and not uncommon, unless they are major they may simply be left. Unlike a gas distribution system where any leak is potentially highly dangerous.

    25. Re:This is some VERY cool stuff! by mpe · · Score: 2

      Water from the Atlantic off the Jersey shore is fundamentally undrinkable. After all the desalinization, distilliation and purification needed to make it fit for human consumption, it would probably run you about $2/gallon.

      AFAIK the East coast of the US is not a desert. Does none of the rainwater come from the Atlantic?

    26. Re:This is some VERY cool stuff! by ErikZ · · Score: 2

      Really? What kind of lawn does an apartment dweller water?

      Did you even think about this for longer than 2 seconds?

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    27. Re:This is some VERY cool stuff! by ScuzzMonkey · · Score: 2

      Go CLC!

      --
      No relation to Happy Monkey
    28. Re:This is some VERY cool stuff! by Sebastopol · · Score: 2

      Oh please -- people use water, not sprawl!

      Oh please, let me enlighten you.

      Apparently you've never heard of something called a WATER-TABLE. It's how water gets from the sky into reservoirs after it rains. If developers bulldoze too much land it reduces the amount of water delivered to reservoirs, ergo less water delivered by NATURAL means to the storage areas we depend on.

      A high-rise is far more friendly to the water table than a bazillion acres of track homes.

      --
      https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    29. Re:This is some VERY cool stuff! by Samrobb · · Score: 1
      What is a far better solution is for groups of citizens who want to end sprawl, such as yourself, combined with the rich loud mouths who critize people who live in sprawl, to actually get together and purchase up unspoiled suburban land and it put into permanent unbreakable land trusts.

      Here in PA, there's a program called "Clean & Green". If you own more than 10 acres of land, you can register under this program and get some significant property tax breaks. The land may not be developed while it's enrolled in the program; and in order to disenroll, you need to pay up to seven years back taxes. Ouch. There are other programs where the state essentially buys the right to develop the property from the landowner. If anyone ever decides they wish to develop that land, then they need to both buy the property and buy the development rights back from the state (asuming that the state is willing to seel thsoe rights.)

      The point is, these are fairly popular programs in PA with the landholders themselves. No need to form citizens groups to buy up the land, or anything like that... just make it more profitable for a landowner to keep their land undeveloped. Right now, the only reason the Clean green program isn't massively popular in near-suburban areas of PA is that it takes two years to process the application and get your property enrolled in the program, and the application process is needlessly finicky about when you may attempt to enroll.

      --
      "Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
  2. Re:hm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a fresh water tunnel, not a sewer, moron.

  3. contamination by oo7tushar · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    This is probably one of the best ideas as in some cases water could flow in. Building some sort of water testing systems or collection systems into the sub for testing would be g00d as sources of contamination from chemical factories could also be found.

  4. Little Known Fact... by SexPig · · Score: 4, Informative

    The television show Beauty & The Beast with Linda Hamilton filmed in the huge hole that was in NY's Central Park 10 years ago. This hole was the drop point for large equipment to get lowered into the tunnel being digged. For those inerested it was West-South-West of Delcorte Theater. I think the new drop point is in Queens now...

    --
    "...and generally behaved in a manner one can only describe as despicable." - February 27 2001, Michael Sims
    1. Re:Little Known Fact... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "digged"? Cripes.

    2. Re:Little Known Fact... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Queens is a hole as well. What happened to the TV show?

    3. Re:Little Known Fact... by antistuff · · Score: 1

      Dont rag on queens, could be worse.. look at staten island.

    4. Re:Little Known Fact... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm, he wasn't ragging on Queens, he was saying that the hole to lower equipment into tunnel #3 is now in Queens, since that's where the digging is now...

  5. The third water tunnel is really going well. by NickV · · Score: 5, Informative

    The nice thing about this capital project, is it may be the first major capital project that is on schedule. Compared to the Big Dig in Boston, the NYC water project is remarkably on schedule, and is even arguably ahead of schedule.

    In fact, 13 miles of the third tunnel is ALREADY activated and allows a little of the stress of tunnels 1 and 2 to be relieved.

    I can't even imagine what the city will do when this project will be done... they'll be a serious amount of money freed up for more capital projects. Perhaps sinking the west side highway from canal to the brooklyn/battery tunnel and creating another central park-type area? The idea's been batted around since the 80s. Hmm... Gotta say, nothing seems to keep NYC down.

    1. Re:The third water tunnel is really going well. by Telastyn · · Score: 2

      Note on that site 24 people have already died making the tunnel. I remember reading about the dozens that died making the Empire State Building...

    2. Re:The third water tunnel is really going well. by nucal · · Score: 1

      Well ... a 50 year time frame must leave a little wiggle room.

    3. Re:The third water tunnel is really going well. by smagoun · · Score: 1
      What do you mean the Big Dig isn't on schedule? It's not overbudget by 800% (12 billion dollars) either. That's a myth perpetuated by the liberal media that has destroyed Massachussetts.

      Oh wait....

    4. Re:The third water tunnel is really going well. by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

      I'd just like to remind you that the same things were said in the first few years of the Big Dig project. It was supposedly ahead of schedule and under budget......

      --
      Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    5. Re:The third water tunnel is really going well. by Evro · · Score: 1

      I can't even imagine what the city will do when this project will be done ...

      The 2nd Avenue Subway, of course.

      --
      rooooar
    6. Re:The third water tunnel is really going well. by barzok · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      New stadiums for the Yankees and Mets, along with moving the Jets and maybe the Giants back to NY where they belong, if it hasn't happened by then.

    7. Re:The third water tunnel is really going well. by RexRuther · · Score: 1

      The 2nd Ave. Subway is alreadyin the planning stage (again if you remember the history of it) and will probably be built sometime in the next 15 years.

      But I won't hold my breath.

      --
      -"The early bird catches the worm, but the late bird sleeps the most"
    8. Re:The third water tunnel is really going well. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      New stadiums for the Yankees and Mets, along with moving the Jets and maybe the Giants back to NY where they belong, if it hasn't happened by then

      Since when should the gov't pay for a palce for millionaires to go around throwing balls? Make them pay for their own damned stadiums. They can more than afford it.

    9. Re:The third water tunnel is really going well. by dillon_rinker · · Score: 2

      Note on that site 24 people have already died making the tunnel
      Note also that ~200,000 people died yesterday. Note further that ~3,000 died in car crashed in the US last month.

      Your statement is roughly on a par with observations of the dangers of DHMO.

    10. Re:The third water tunnel is really going well. by guanxi · · Score: 1

      Progress on the tunnel has not gone unnoticed on the surface. Ask Brooklyn sound studio Master Sound.

    11. Re:The third water tunnel is really going well. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 2nd Ave. Subway

      I say let the mother-fucking rich upper-east-siders walk the extra fucking block to the existing lines.

    12. Re:The third water tunnel is really going well. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh wait....

      And then...?

    13. Re:The third water tunnel is really going well. by Mike+Schiraldi · · Score: 2

      You seem to know a lot about this .. i have a question: Why is this tunnel taking so much longer to build than the first two did?

    14. Re:The third water tunnel is really going well. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yaknow, the 2nd ave subway will run through Spanish Harlem, Kips Bay (my neck o' the woods), East Village, and the LES. Take a walk down bedpan alley sometime (1st ave from 38th to 18th)--ever wonder why *no one* lives on 1st? It's too far to the subway on Lex, especially after the 2nd and 3rd Ave El's were pulled down in the 40's and 60's. You put in the 2nd Ave subway and I guarantee first and second ave's get a housing boom unseen in the city since the 1980's.

      BTW, the walk from York to Lex is more like 4 blocks, and is quite a pain in the winter. Especially for the elderly. And York is where the housing projects are, so the residents aren't likely to be wealthy.

    15. Re:The third water tunnel is really going well. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The first two were cut and cover (tear up a road, dig a trench, plop in a pipe, put the road back on top) and are only 20-30 feet underground. They also put in chunks of each while building the subway system. The new tunnel is ~600 feet underground, and is being dug through solid granite. We're digging a true tunnel into which we can put pipes and generators and new subways if wanted to. The new system is an order of magnitude more ambitious than the initial pipe-laying.

  6. *Groan* Go Hug a Tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gods... why can't man reshape the world in his own vision... why does some tree hugging, liberal whale loving idiot always got to spout off against development.

    I live in NJ... I would rather have decent roads and what not, better and bigger facilities and housing, than a few extra trees.

    1. Re:*Groan* Go Hug a Tree by PD · · Score: 1

      YOU want a road...or does your CAR want a road? Think about it. There's ways to have everything that we have now, and not own a personal car.

    2. Re:*Groan* Go Hug a Tree by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Lets scale back on the anti-car sentiment here. Cars are innocent free ranging creatures no need to bash them.

      --
      Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    3. Re:*Groan* Go Hug a Tree by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 4, Informative

      You can't be serious?

      No one is talking about 'a few extra trees'

      When they say NJ has no water table, that means there's no money left in the bank... The area is living hand to mouth here.

      Water in the ground is like money in the bank. If there's any sort of disruption (manmade, natural, catastrophe, or otherwise), THERE IS NO WATER.

      So... you in NJ with decent roads, better and bigger facilities and housing, but absolutely no water. What would you do? Nothing to drink with, nothing to bathe with, nothing to clean with...

      Or rather, there *would* be water, but you may not be able to afford to use it, if it's priced like milk or gas :)

    4. Re:*Groan* Go Hug a Tree by doooras · · Score: 2

      I want a car. I want my car on the road. I could care less what my car wants.

    5. Re:*Groan* Go Hug a Tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Or rather, there *would* be water, but you may not be able to afford to use it, if it's priced like milk or gas :)

      Oh, and I thought in the US, gas was priced like water... *duck*

    6. Re:*Groan* Go Hug a Tree by guinsu · · Score: 2

      haha, decent roads and New Jersey in the same sentence? Try driving outside of your own state for once and you'll see how shitty NJ's raods are.

    7. Re:*Groan* Go Hug a Tree by DrOrange · · Score: 1

      Actually, New Jersey has one of the largest water reserves in the world. Under the Pine Lands of South Jersey sits the Kirkwood-Cohansey aquifer. It's capacity is roughly 17 trillion gallons, but due to overuse some of the higher levels of the aquifer are suffering from salt water intrusion, especially in Cape May (That pointy part on the bottom of NJ). Even with this problem, the aquifer is still a viable resource for Southern New Jersey's drinking water - and it isn't terribly affected by droughts. A semi-government run organization called the Pinelands Commission oversees development in the 1.1 million acre area. Although this organization has taken some flack lately, it has been successful overall in limiting development in the most ecologically sensitve areas of the Pine Lands. While protecting wetlands gives little tadpoles a home, it also protects valuable spots for the water to be absorbed into the aquifer. How is this valuable for New York? It isn't! Because of its location, it isn't even valuable for North Jersey. New Jersey doesn't allow the export of its water to other states - but - the Army Core of Engineers is rumored to have a right of way from New York City 90 miles south to the Pine Lands. Is it true?

  7. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  8. Re:hm by linzeal · · Score: 1

    Seriously though isn't the hudson system supposed to supply some of the cleanest water in the world to the denizens of new york?

  9. Wetlands and the EPA by Kymermosst · · Score: 2, Flamebait

    Of all the ridiculous, stupid things... a wetlands that is artificial, when removed, is an EPA violation? JFC, things have gotten out of hand.

    You'd think that the artificial wetlands WOULD be an EPA violation, since it is not supposed to be there and has obviously changed the area dramatically.

    Welcome to era where environmentalist whackos can take your property rights if your water pipe has a leak and makes a pond of standing water in your back yard. Suddenly, your property is a wetlands, and we all know you can't damage a wetlands. The poor tadpoles might need to go find a new home.

    And the damage to your land equity isn't even reimbursed most places.

    --
    "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    1. Re:Wetlands and the EPA by T5 · · Score: 1

      If you've got a soggy spot for 14 days straight, you've got a wetland according to the EPA.

      Does this mean that my armpits are federally protected?

    2. Re:Wetlands and the EPA by Ooblek · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and on top of that it looks like this is another case of a PHB ignoring the warnings of the experienced engineers. The transcript had the engineers saying it was an emergency. Hell, how fun would it be to flush a cemetary down the town's main street? Also, if the tunnel broke, what kind of large sink-hole would that cause before some PHB decided to authorize the tunnel be shut down? I'm glad I don't live there.

    3. Re:Wetlands and the EPA by ENOENT · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      JFC, things have gotten out of hand.

      Damn, I wonder how long people have been swearing by the Java Foundation Classes?

      --
      That's "Mr. Soulless Automaton" to you, Bub.
    4. Re:Wetlands and the EPA by Deosyne · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, but unfortunately because they are also a serious environmental hazard, they are now under the control of the government as well, and will be removed and relocated to an approved HazMat disposal point. I recommend stockpiling lots of painkillers soon.

    5. Re:Wetlands and the EPA by PD · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Your head is a wetland?

    6. Re:Wetlands and the EPA by nomadic · · Score: 2

      Welcome to era where environmentalist whackos can take your property rights if your water pipe has a leak and makes a pond of standing water in your back yard

      Welcome to an era when rabid anti-environmentalists base their wild accusations not on reputable sources but on the editorial comment of some anonymous slashdot story submitter.

    7. Re:Wetlands and the EPA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since the millisecond they were invented, no doubt.

    8. Re:Wetlands and the EPA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I assume an email in cyberspace qualifies as a more reputable source.

  10. action plan for terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a stupid web site!!!!!!!!!

    The FedGov and TomRidge have been ordering our nation's libraries to pull any material describing water treatment facilities, watersheds, reservoirs, and pipelines because the A-Rabs could use this information in a terror attack.

    Now the nitwits in New York City lay out the locations of the only two aquifers supplying same. Why not just paint bullseyes on the pipes? You'd kill a lot more people by cutting of the water supply than you'd ever kill with planes.

    God, are you stoooooooooooooooooopid.

    1. Re:action plan for terrorists by Latent+IT · · Score: 1

      Okay, chuckles. Lets go over this so even you can understand. In the Catskill Mountains, there's a big lake. Huge. Very hard to miss. It's got a sign above it. (In several places, actually.) This supplies the water of NYC. It's no secret.

      Now, lets say you can go through a few dozen feet of rock. Okay? After you've gone through that, you can go through another dozen feet of cement. THEN you'll have made a teensy hole. What, you think this is a 3" pipe, like in your wall?

      So. You're going through nearly 100' of solid rocky stuff. With what, dear eliza? A focused nuclear blast? A big drill? Lots of o's in the word stupid? Go ahead, you're the evil mastermind. Why not turn on your tap, and try to drink the cities water supply? Think how many people you could kill if you drank it all!

      Also, on the DEP site is the plan for what to do if both tunnels ever catastrophically failed. It includes desalinazation, as well as a large lake in the middle of central park, and the water table for Long Island being sucked dry. ;p

      But thanks for trying to feel superior. You're not. You're actually pretty dull. Have a nice day! You've been flamed!

    2. Re:action plan for terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then again it would take a lot of energy to destroy the pipelines considering how deep they are below the surface.

      Nature is far better at it then man could be.

    3. Re:action plan for terrorists by jerryasher · · Score: 1

      No, all you need is one psychic alien!
      Dreamcatcher, by Stephen King

    4. Re:action plan for terrorists by TheOnlyCoolTim · · Score: 2

      I looked on the DEP site for the plan about making a large lake in central Park, couldn't find it... Link please?

      Tim

      --
      Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.
    5. Re:action plan for terrorists by JabberWokky · · Score: 2
      I don't have a link, but I heard the same thing from a guy who is a Geology PhD in the employ of Florida Water Management (he makes neat 3D maps of water flow on both large (Florida itself) and small (around airports, showing flow of contaminants) scale. nifty). It was just chatting about "how bad can it get" during a BBQ, but he's at least in the field, which gives a bit more credibility to that story.

      --br. Evan

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    6. Re:action plan for terrorists by Latent+IT · · Score: 2

      No, not making a large lake. There's a former reservoir (now inactive) there already. Don't worry about a link, check a map. ;)

    7. Re:action plan for terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So. You're going through nearly 100' of solid rocky stuff. With what, dear eliza? A focused nuclear blast?



      I think a Bunker Buster bomb would do the trick. The nuclear ones are nice, but they are probably not necessary. But thanks for pointing out the thickness of the bassin.

      A. Rab

    8. Re:action plan for terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, an aqcuintance of a friend of a sister of a mother of a nephew of a father of an uncle of the son-in-law of the neighbor of the child of an old schoolteacher of the girlfriend of a collegue's wife's collegue thinks the same.

      So it must be true.

    9. Re:action plan for terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, chuckles....
      Now, lets say you can go through a few dozen feet of rock. Okay? After you've gone through that, you can go through another dozen feet of cement. THEN you'll have made a teensy hole. What, you think this is a 3" pipe, like in your wall?


      Lets say you open a maintainance hatch and chuck in a cow carcass infected with smallpox.

      Lets say you reverse-flow some of the testing pipes.

      Lets say you dump a few dozen infected animal bodies in the watershed.

      Also, on the DEP site is the plan for what to do if both tunnels ever catastrophically failed. It includes desalinazation, as well as a large lake in the middle of central park, and the water table for Long Island being sucked dry. ;p

      A drop in the proverbial bucket.

      BBut thanks for trying to feel superior. You're not. You're actually pretty dull. Have a nice day!

    10. Re:action plan for terrorists by Latent+IT · · Score: 2

      Nah. You have no math skills. The backups combined can put through 500 million gallons/day. The city as a whole uses 750 million gallons/day. I think we can shut off the car washes and not die of thirst on 50 gallons/day/person. ;p

      Lets say you reverse-flow some of the testing pipes.

      Yes, lets. The flow pressure is enough to feed buildings 12 stories high without pumping. Good luck reverse flowing against that kind of presure over a billion gallons/day.

      And go ahead and dump in and infect whatever you want... the water is chlorinated/flourinated and everything outside and in between after all of your happy little maintenance hatches. What, you think we drink the fish poop too?

      Oh yeah. And come up with your own insults at the end. I've come to believe my six month old puppy is far brighter than you. =)

  11. This is important news by hyrdra · · Score: 4, Informative

    What I find most interesting about all of this is the statement about repairs being too risky and to just let the thing leak itself to death, hopefully while building a new tunnel.

    I agree with the lawyer in this case -- this seems like a really serious problem, with the capability of affecting many, many people. NYC has already had it's share of disasters, hopefully a city-wide water failure won't be next.

    I was also thinking about that 1958 inspection, and the statement in the article about how draining a high pressure underground tunnel can be very dangerous to it's structure. Is it possible that a significant amount of damage occured in the '58 jeep tour, when the tunnel is drained? The sources at hand even state the sink-hole was created around this time, so possibly the ignorance of the past and an inspection is to blame for these leaks?

    All I can say is I hope they will do something preventative. How big is the risk to do repairs vs. building a new tunnel? Hopefully we will all have water in a few years! This news (including the 12-year cover up) is certainly interesting to know...and it's been going on all along under our feet!

    I wouldn't take much risk with something as fundamental as water.

    --


    "I'll just chip in a bit for RedHat: I actually have that installed on my university machine." - Linus, '95
    1. Re:This is important news by elfkicker · · Score: 1

      Also keep in mind that these tunnels run very close to the Ramapo Fault Line [PDF]. Every few years or so we get a minor quake. I always seem to sleep through them, so they're not that big, but I'm sure they've had some impact on the aqueducts.

      Lot's more info is available from Lamont-Doherty Labs which is located in the area.

  12. Next Problem to Solve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now if only they could find a solution to the rodent infestation problem.

    Or would that cause another EPA violation?

  13. Duct tape! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Why don't they just use duct tape to seal the leak?

    1. Re:Duct tape! by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Insightful?!? ohh my god.

      now that "IS" funny.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    2. Re:Duct tape! by Winged+Cat · · Score: 1

      Because duct tape works on everything but ducts...and this is close enough to a cooling duct, with the water coming out of the leak. ;)

  14. Autonomous robots == good by danro · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Previous repairs required four deep sea divers to spend almost a week at 700 feet pressure to fix a leaking valve.
    This sounds like a really horrible experience (Working underground, in streaming, high-pressure water for a week.), not to mention dangerous.(Could have been worse though, think sewer, think high-pressure sh*t!).Good thing they have a remote controlled device for it now.
    The job seems like _the_ poster-boy for why we need autonomous robots...
    --

    "First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
    1. Re:Autonomous robots == good by volcanic_god · · Score: 1

      I dunno. The article seems to indicate that the robot would FIND the leak but NOT REPAIR the leak!

      So, they might send down more divers or the article mentioned something about draining it to fix it.

      My question is if they are building a new tunnel to bring water to NY, why not turn on that tunnel, shut down the questionable one and spend a year or two fixing the old one and be done with it? Otherwise, why build the second one in the first place, or at least put it to work once it is built.

    2. Re:Autonomous robots == good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First of all, they were not in the water for a week, they were _pressurized_ for a week. Second, the robot ain't gonna do nothin' but look.

    3. Re:Autonomous robots == good by rusty0101 · · Score: 1

      I think that is part of the idea behind building the new tunnel. Right now the two tunnels that are serving NY are fully utilized. If you shut down one for maintenance the demands are too high to be provided by the remaining tunnel.

      The third tunnel (from what I recall) has a capacity more than twice the combined capacity of the two existing tunnells. Or rather will have when it is completed. I do not recall the date that it was started, but with a 55 year build out time, even assuming a 10% ahead of schedule rate (which I suspect is high, and is subject to change over the years to come) I doubt that it will be finished in time to provide more than additional capacity when it is completed.

      Then again, I could be wrong. These are my own opinions.

      -Rusty

      --
      You never know...
    4. Re:Autonomous robots == good by danro · · Score: 1
      1. Well, being pressurized for a week is no picnic.
        Try living in a pressure chamber/diving bell a few days and see how you like it... =)
        Not recommended for the claustrophobic...
      2. And _looking_ wouldn't be hard/dangerous to do manually?
      Besides, if you read my post it says: ...why we need autonomous bots.
      I never said the sub was a fire and forget tool, but it is better than nothing, and a step on the way.
      --

      "First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
    5. Re:Autonomous robots == good by LiENUS · · Score: 1

      actually i think id like to be underground reparing leaks (provided im payed enough that is)

    6. Re:Autonomous robots == good by ChadN · · Score: 1

      I knew of a doctor that used to spend a lot of time in a decompression chamber (working with BENDS patients and such). He would run his BBS from there, and I'd call in occasionally. At least he found a way to pass the time.

      --
      "It's overkill, of course. But you can never have too much overkill." - Anonymous Slashdot Coward
    7. Re:Autonomous robots == good by fatbastard10101 · · Score: 1

      Sanitary engineers try real hard to make sure that sewer lines are gravity powered, not pressure. Sometimes it is inevitable, though.

      Pressure is bad b/c a break is way grosser than a water main break or a phone conduit crack. Also, if the material goes anaerobic, the waste products can corrode your pipe.

  15. Re:hm by l810c · · Score: 1

    It's an aquaduct, not a sewer.

  16. Better Yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or better yet, how about Leak Ender 2000?

    1. Re:Better Yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think not. It leave a bad taste in the mouth

  17. Don't believe BS about wetlands violations by waytoomuchcoffee · · Score: 5, Informative

    First of all, the Corps of Engineers regulates filling of wetlands (through the 404 permit process), not the EPA.

    Second of all, this is exempt from Corps fill requirements as it is a man-made water source.

    How do I know? Because I'm the one that gets Corps wetland delineations done for the water agency I work for, and man-made sources (like those created from all of our water sampling stations) are NOT regulated by the Corps.

    The guy in the article said "Those wetlands are going to dry up and that's probably against the law." Note the "probably". He obviously does not do regulatory work.

    Before anyone else on this board talks about "environmentalist whackos", get your facts straight.

    1. Re:Don't believe BS about wetlands violations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, I'll talk about enviro-nazi. Because all of those fucktards are going to be killed, along with all the european socialists

    2. Re:Don't believe BS about wetlands violations by ArsonSmith · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hmmmm, 404 permit process not found.

      please check the url and try again.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    3. Re:Don't believe BS about wetlands violations by crystalplague · · Score: 1

      i thought all environmentalists were whackos?

    4. Re:Don't believe BS about wetlands violations by Kymermosst · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Doesn't matter who regulates the filling of them, the problem is WHO defines what a wetland is. There is another poster who seems to think that with the EPA, 14 days of continued "wet" area... e.g. ponds, puddles, snowmelt, whatever, makes it a wetland.

      While, I don't think that is exactly correct, the current definitions are still absurd, and still used as a way for a small number of people to stop a large number of people from using their own land.

      Furthermore, the Corps does NOT, as far as I can tell, regulate wetlands within incorporated areas, and NOTHING prevents other agencies from stopping you, even if the Corps would give you a permit.

      I know this because my family has 7 acres of land in Minnesota that we bought 40 years ago, with the idea of subdividing it and selling it in the future.

      Now that future is here, and when we went to do that, suddenly it is a wetlands (It is lakeshore property, of course it's fscking wet!), and nobody bothered to inform us over the 40 years that it had become one, nobody gave us an option to appeal its status, and the land is worthless to anyone. You can't even camp there.

      The land would be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars we could use it the way we bought it. Right now, it is worth... Nothing.

      My point is, that this is bullshit.

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    5. Re:Don't believe BS about wetlands violations by waytoomuchcoffee · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ****Doesn't matter who regulates the filling of them, the problem is WHO defines what a wetland is. There is another poster who seems to think that with the EPA, 14 days of continued "wet" area... e.g. ponds, puddles, snowmelt, whatever, makes it a wetland.***

      The Corps personnel determines what is and is not a wetland, based on a number of criteria (soils, indicator wetland species, etc.) It is partially subjective, but in your case (next to a lake), it's pretty clear cut.

      ***Furthermore, the Corps does NOT, as far as I can tell, regulate wetlands within incorporated areas***

      Actually it does. It is just that there are seldom wetlands IN incorporated areas.

      ***and NOTHING prevents other agencies from stopping you, even if the Corps would give you a permit.***

      That is true. In California, wetlands not under jurisdiction of the Corps can be regulated by the State Regional Water Quality Control Boards. I guess the alternative is to amend the Constitution to eliminate State rights.

      ***and nobody bothered to inform us over the 40 years that it had become one***

      No one COULD inform you. Did you expect a gigantic Manhattan-project type of wetland survey that traveled across the land? Even the USGS doesn't do that level of survey for its maps. The criteria was, however, published in the Federal Register, for anyone to review that was interested. They even have a search page.

      ***and the land is worthless to anyone.**

      Actually, it is worth a lot to whoever uses the water, both people and critters.

      The alternative in your view, is that anyone should be able to destroy wetlands whenever they wanted to. Under that strategy, no one would have clean water to drink (our water agency is VERY concerned about wetlands filling, as it quantifiably degrades the water quality).

      You expect it is your RIGHT to make money when you speculate on land? You have a chance to win or lose... in your case you lost.

    6. Re:Don't believe BS about wetlands violations by spicyjeff · · Score: 2

      I believe it was meant as a joke, at least light-hearted. Lighten up.

    7. Re:Don't believe BS about wetlands violations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      i thought all environmentalists were whackos?

      Only the stupid ones are.

    8. Re:Don't believe BS about wetlands violations by 1010011010 · · Score: 2

      Actually, it is worth a lot to whoever uses the water, both people and critters.

      The alternative in your view, is that anyone should be able to destroy wetlands whenever they wanted to.


      Actually, the alternative is for the government that has taken their land from them to compensate them for the taking.

      Please don't argue that the land has not been "taken," because they still have the deed. They cannot use their for the purpose they bought it for, which was legal when they bought it, because of new regulation of that land.

      The government has taken the value away from their land, and the family is due payment for it.

      --
      Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
    9. Re:Don't believe BS about wetlands violations by Kymermosst · · Score: 2

      I guess the alternative is to amend the Constitution to eliminate State rights.

      Already (mostly) happened. Ever looked at the 17th Amendment to the Constitution? All state voice in federal goverment is gone.

      The alternative in your view, is that anyone should be able to destroy wetlands whenever they wanted to. Under that strategy, no one would have clean water to drink

      That is NOT what I am advocating. What I am advocating is that when you buy land, you should have the right to use it the way you could have when you bought it. If some law is enacted that changes this, you should be compensated for the value that was lost. Not being able to build a house takes away a lot of the value.

      I'm not saying to let people pollute as much as they want, or fill in as much pond as they want, just that they should be able to USE what they paid for, in a responsible way.

      We can't even put ONE house on the aforementioned 7 acres. They won't even budge 1 bit. The footprint of a house and driveway wouldn't possibly exceed 3000 square feet, which is a far cry from 304,920 square feet that is 7 acres. They won't let you fill and build on 0.09% of it.

      If we could just put one single little cabin there, we'd make it a vacation home. But we can't even do that.

      Furthermore, it is taxed as if it had the full value of land that was unrestricted. Figure that one.

      And, as far as use of the lake goes, it's 16 feet deep. There are no natural fish in it, and it isn't any human's water source. There are no natural fish because every few years the entire lake freezes and everything in the water dies, because it freezes all the way to the bottom. (Winter kill.)

      Buying land and later being told you can't put a house on it is like buying a computer and later being told you can't put a hard drive in it.

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    10. Re:Don't believe BS about wetlands violations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "They cannot use their for the purpose they bought it for, which was legal when they bought it, because of new regulation of that land."

      Haha, by that logic, if I couldn't grow pot on my land, despite having bought it in 1900 expressly for that purpose, the gov't would owe me money.

    11. Re:Don't believe BS about wetlands violations by Juggle · · Score: 2

      Better send some of those engineers down to Arizona then because we're suffering the same problem here in Yuma.

      They build a multi-million dollar desalination plant to clean farm run-off before returning it to the colorado river to meet treaty requirements for fresh water with Mexico.

      While they were building the plant they made a temporary drainage ditch that dumps the run-off into the Golf of Mexico well within Mexican borders.

      Now a group called the CBD (Center For Biological Diversity) with a long history of winning this kind of lawsuit is threating to take legal action to stop the plant from becoming operational...why?

      Because a new "wetland" has formed where the temporary ditch drains into the Gulf down in Mexico. They claim that by cleaning the water and returning it to the Colorado it will put a number of species in peril of extinction.

      Of course the fact that this is happening is Mexico dosen't bother them since the actions causing these events are taking place in the US.

      And all of this thanks to our extremely poorly written Endangered Species Act that assumes humans are guilty of habitat destruction unless proven otherwise.

      They recently sued the BLM to close down over 50k acres of public land in southern california (and won with the BLM settling out of court and agreeing to the closures) to protect a plant that is listed as "threatend" (not even endangered) despite the fact that the BLM's own studies and other independent studies show the plant is thriving and does not even belong on the endangered species list in the first place.

      --
      --- Juggle juggle@hitesman.com
    12. Re:Don't believe BS about wetlands violations by Julian+Morrison · · Score: 0, Troll

      The proper term for a "wetland" is "bog", "marsh", "swamp", or "useless muddy ground".

      The proper term for a government environmental regulator is "pinko hippy", "land thief", and "target".

    13. Re:Don't believe BS about wetlands violations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, let's pretend they really bought some quasi-swamp 40 years ago for speculative reasons and not for hunting or whatever. Turns out they speculated incorrectly! -- Virutally all land valuations depend highly on govenment decisions, so that's part of the risk, and always has been. You suggest that government should be the insurance agency for every crackpot land scheme.

    14. Re:Don't believe BS about wetlands violations by caferace · · Score: 1
      First of all, the Corps of Engineers regulates filling of wetlands (through the 404 permit process), not the EPA.

      Hmmm. 404 - Wetland Not Found

      naaah.

    15. Re:Don't believe BS about wetlands violations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Furthermore, it is taxed as if it had the full value of land that was unrestricted. Figure that one."

      One word for ya

      reassessment

      Barring that, maybe you could sell tickets to nothing or auction the land off to well to do enviro nuts.

      Bottom line though, you took a speculative risk and got the worst of it. Not much you could do much like my uncle and Enron (he was an employee).

    16. Re:Don't believe BS about wetlands violations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Already (mostly) happened. Ever looked at the 17th Amendment to the Constitution? All state voice in federal goverment is gone.

      Just looked at it:

      Amendment XVII

      The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislatures.

      When vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, that the legislature of any state may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

      This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

      Could you explain how this eliminates state voice in federal government?

    17. Re:Don't believe BS about wetlands violations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i thought all environmentalists were whackos?

      Only the stupid ones are.

      Like he said...

    18. Re:Don't believe BS about wetlands violations by Kymermosst · · Score: 2

      Okay, the Constitution, before that was written, stated "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof..."

      You see, before the 17th Amendment, Senators were chose by state legistlating bodies, thus, the state legislature could choose people who would represent the interests of that individual state.

      The idea being, that there would be two opposing houses, and both would need to be in agreement to pass a law. This is a check, and was designed to prevent needless law that wasn't in the interest of both the People (House of Representatives) and the States (Senate).

      Now, that check is entirely removed, and the people elect both the Senators and the Representatives, and the people tend to choose like-minded people for both. Thus, it is now easy for too much law to be passed, and there is nobody in the federal government that is the direct representation of the state government. That is, nobody in the three branches of the federal government is chosen by ANY of the individual states.

      Furthermore, since Senators have to campaign because of the 17th Amendment, they have to get money, in the form of contributions, thus, they can be bought.

      With Senators appointed by the state legislature, they wouldn't need to be "bought", and they would not be in the hands of big contributors. Imagine the kind of campaign finance reform you'd get with the repeal of the 17th Amendment!

      The brilliant minds who wrote the Constitution would be apalled at what we did to it when the 17th Amendment was passed.

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    19. Re:Don't believe BS about wetlands violations by armb · · Score: 2

      > Haha, by that logic, if I couldn't grow pot on my land, despite having bought it in 1900 expressly for that purpose, the gov't would owe me money.

      If you couldn't reasonably grow any other crop on it, and the market for hemp ropes hadn't shrunk hugely anyway, you might have a case.

      I'm sure if growing tobacco is ever made illegal tobacco farmers will want compensation.

      --
      rant
    20. Re:Don't believe BS about wetlands violations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you thought about designating it a wildlife area. Can get tax breaks. Then not only do you get some monetary benefit (you greedy bastard), you do something good, instead of creating tiny little lots that get bought up by polluting assholes. Christ, this state is going right into the shitter because of development.

    21. Re:Don't believe BS about wetlands violations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The proper term for you is "waste of bandwidth"

      ..and probably air. Good lord I'm sick of assholes like you. Society would be so much better off if you'd open your mind just a tiny crack. Let some light in on that shriveled little black mass.

    22. Re:Don't believe BS about wetlands violations by Zachary+Kessin · · Score: 2

      Even if senators were appointed by the state legislatures do you think that there would be no politics involved? That the prospecive senators would not be raising money for the party? Or that they would not go around giving speaches to try and sway people?
      (Anyone remember reading about the Lincoln Douglas debates?)

      --
      Erlang Developer and podcaster
    23. Re:Don't believe BS about wetlands violations by mudshark · · Score: 1

      Let me get this straight:

      Your family bought land on the assumption that its value would appreciate. It didn't. This is known as speculation. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, the rest of the time you break even. Advice? Get a better crystal ball, get used to it, or get over it.

      --
      In other news, astrophysicists have announced that they now know what all that dark matter is: it's stupidity.
    24. Re:Don't believe BS about wetlands violations by Kymermosst · · Score: 2

      Oh there would be politics involved, but it would be a MUCH different kind of politics.

      As appointed positions, there wouldn't be as much need for "party politics" because more than likely, the legislature would pick people who's party is the same as the majority in the state legislature.

      There would still be no campaigning, and there would still be no "soft money", and there wouldn't be huge corparate campaign finance donations.

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    25. Re:Don't believe BS about wetlands violations by OwnedByTwoCats · · Score: 1

      Another alternative is for the owners of the wetland that gets filled in to compensate the users of the water, both people and critters, for its decline in quality.

      That's a real loss that the property owners want to foist onto other people, to line their own pockets.

    26. Re:Don't believe BS about wetlands violations by 1010011010 · · Score: 2

      OK, let's pretend they really bought some quasi-swamp 40 years ago for speculative reasons and not for hunting or whatever. Turns out they speculated incorrectly! -- Virutally all land valuations depend highly on govenment decisions, so that's part of the risk, and always has been. You suggest that government should be the insurance agency for every crackpot land scheme.

      It's different, because the land cannot be used for ANYTHING, now that it has wetlands status.

      If it cannot be used for anything by the nominal owner, then it has been taken from the owner.

      The taking is for a public purpose, supposedly -- protection of watershed, or something. And taking of private land for public use requires compensation to the owner.

      --
      Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
  18. Ye Gods Man! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well I remember the over 7 thousand who died in the World Trade Center attack and also in the attack on the Pentagon. Ye Gods Man! Have respect for your country and the many great people who make it up, or else I might think you should have been among one of those 7 thousand...

    1. Re:Ye Gods Man! by PD · · Score: 1

      3 thousand, not 7.

    2. Re:Ye Gods Man! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect he's including the innocent Afghanis as well as the innocent USAians

    3. Re:Ye Gods Man! by PD · · Score: 1

      That's only up to about 3100 or so.

    4. Re:Ye Gods Man! by Telastyn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have respect for my country. I have respect for those who gave their lives willingly to better their fellow man.

      Those dead in the WTC did not. It is of course tragic, but imo they are innocent bystanders when people backlashed against (perhaps only percieved) American oppression. And perhaps I should be dead with them for not turning our government towards more things like the Empire State Building, and the 3rd Water Tunnel, and away from policing the world, and forcing our laws and idologies on foreign lands.

      Great wonders, prosperity, and people make America great; not our Armies and Diplomats. I've respect for my country, but I remember all its fallen, not just the 'tragedy of the week'.

      Coward.

    5. Re:Ye Gods Man! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no no no, innocent afgans: 3050 tops!

  19. Our Time is Soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We've been freezing our butts off in the cold North patiently waiting. We have control of the waters of life. You will bow before us... soon... soon

  20. EPA violation crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >if the tunnel is repaired, the wetlands created by leaks will be destroyed, causing a potential EPA violation.

    So a MAN made water source is a wetlands.

    Oops, I left the yard sprinkler on too long...I gotta go turn it off before some EPA guy declares it a wetlands.
    Let's see can declaring a man-made place a wetlands and therefore preventing development and thus lowering the value of the land be termed 'unreasonable search and seizeure'????

    1. Re:EPA violation crap by belg4mit · · Score: 1

      >So a MAN made water source is a wetlands.
      There is no such thing. We don't mine the
      sun, fuse the helium and burn the hydrogen...

      But less literally, you're still wrong:
      [http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200111/m arsh.asp ]

      --
      Were that I say, pancakes?
    2. Re:EPA violation crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now you understand the absurdity of the EPA and the communist enviromentalist wackos.

      Over here in Houston, we have a strech of highway (Highway 6, in Missouri City) that is only two lanes (one lane each way) wide. The state was about to start expanding it at least two or more lanes (they even had the concrete barriers on site and had some of the new road paved already) but the EPA stopped them because of the wetlands that surrounded the road. What they called wetlands were really just a strech of land that was low (being
      Now we have stupid "Restricted Wetlands Area" signs posted, weeds are growing everywhere (public lawn mowers are not allowed to mow the wetlands area) and it looks horrible, and the expansion project is halted for the time being. Traffic during rush hour is horrible.

    3. Re:EPA violation crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, now I understand the absurdity of the /. article posting process (and the poster themselves).

  21. Enron by panaceaa · · Score: 1

    This must be the start of a scam to get New York locked into higher water wholesaling prices.

    Beware of owning any exciting water wholesaling companies come next fall! :)

    1. Re:Enron by nomadic · · Score: 2

      Good. We SHOULD pay more for water, maybe that way people won't keep assuming we have an unlimited supply.

    2. Re:Enron by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      I have obtained a trademark on my breath, as it has a distinctive look and feel. Since my breath readily disperses, everyone who breathes must pay a royalty payment for using several molecules of my breath every day. Please remit.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    3. Re:Enron by Chester+Abecrombe · · Score: 1

      Um, we *DO* have an unlimited supply. It's not like it's going anywhere...

    4. Re:Enron by nomadic · · Score: 2

      There isn't an unlimited supply of potable water.

  22. don't go int there!! by wildcard023 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Are they nuts?! Just driving a harmless little robot around the sewer system. Next thing you know you'll have alligators in the street, vigilante ninja turtles and rivers of slime that lead to bill murray driving Mecha Liberty around with a 8 bit Nintendo "arcade style" joystick!

    What the hell are they thinking?!

    --
    -- Mike wildcard@illuminatus.org
    1. Re:don't go int there!! by leftsaidfred · · Score: 1

      Alligators in the streets? I thought the mini-robot was in the shape of an alligator, you know to blend in with the sewer surroundings.. or I guess the mini-robot could be in the shape of a big brown log.

  23. But will be it called the "Nebuchadnezzar"? by Mwongozi · · Score: 1, Offtopic
    Oh wait, that was a hovercraft.

    Never mind...

  24. Re:Hello I am Peter NOrth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does he really do gay stuff as well? I'll be damned.

  25. The Great Stink of London by ajm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I suspect many geeks would also be interested in this book The Great Stink of London about the Victorian engineering works that transformed London and the Thames. A fascination subject, considering the same tunnels etc. are still in use today. If any code you write lasts as long then ....

  26. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  27. LIAR! WETLANDS caused by man are NOT exempt!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This guy is a NUT!

    I know for a fact in Michigan a company I worked for tried to buy a ton of land for three large manufacturing plants.

    good flat land in michigan naturally has some watery swampy marsh on it usually somewhere, but if the water is a recent MAN MADE issue it is NOT excempt.

    So man made swamps are too regulated by whackos.

    In fact in this case the mashy area was caused by a small area of water buildup near the bank of a highway system and the highway embankments directed some rainwater and rivlets onto the property creating the man made semi-swampy section.

    IT WAS PROTECTED AS A WETLAND and so were a large amount of buffer zone around it.

    I hav nothing against protecting legitimate ponds from dredging, or legitimate swamps from filling (I have seem tens of both illegally done in michigan) but this poster has his head up his rear if he thinks that waterflow created by man is a consideration of swamp or pond status... it isnt.

    If it does not look like a water truck accident spilled a load, and instead represents a couple years of plant growth, and harbors a few chiping frogs and a turtle or two it is very protectable.

    Same thing if you plant pine tree on your own tree farm for xmas trees in Placer County CA. If these trees ever get to 15 feet because you forget to cut your trees down regularly they become a legal FOREST. A federally protected FOREST of hundreds of 15 foot trees that cannot be cut down.

    even though they were recently planted.

    I do not care one way or another about man made marshes or ponds, but this guy is flat out WRONG despite his claims of expertise in the field. WRONG.

    1. Re:LIAR! WETLANDS caused by man are NOT exempt!! by waytoomuchcoffee · · Score: 1

      The water was not from a man-made source. It was diverted, and therefore at least partially natural. That's all the Corps needs.

    2. Re:LIAR! WETLANDS caused by man are NOT exempt!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's still pretty dumb. Whether it meets the Corps' definition probably doesn't matter 'cause some group will sue to prevent anything being done with it and will twist regulation to fit their cause. IMHO, these 'wetlands' should be in existence for at least a decade or two.

  28. Infrastructure by the lowest bidder by SimJockey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Roman aquaducts seem to be lasting 20 times as long as this. Silly capitalism. :)

    Seriously, crumbling infrastructure is only part of the reason that I see water getting (comparitively) real expensive in our lifetime. As source waters get more scarce and contaminated treatment costs go up. Plus the infrastructure is just wearing out. And since governments (at least in N. America) seem loathe to raise taxes, the costs are going to be passed on to the end user. Which I really don't think is a bad thing, once people realize the real costs of the resources they take for granted, conservation should go way up.

    So yeah, flame me for being a tree hugger. Some are passionate about linux, I'm passionate about water.

    --
    Laugh while you can, monkey boy!
    1. Re:Infrastructure by the lowest bidder by Triv · · Score: 2

      Seriously, crumbling infrastructure is only part of the reason that I see water getting (comparitively) real expensive in our lifetime.

      I hear that. The sewers (rainwater, not sewage) in my hometown in Jersey are easily a hundred years old.

      Because they're underground no one notices them. They're taken for granted. But they're clogged, crumbling and performing way beyond their design specifications. The town could spend a few million now to repair it as they go (say, when they repave the roads) but they're not going to. Why? Because if they did it'd look like they were wasting money to repair something that's still working. The term preventative maintenance don't fly in that 'burb.

      So 50 years from now when the sewers collapse and the repair bill bankrupts the town someone's going to say "Why didn't we do this earlier?"

      Makes me glad I moved into New York City. Oh, wait...

      Triv

    2. Re:Infrastructure by the lowest bidder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And since governments (at least in N. America) seem loathe to raise taxes

      Where do you live? The politicians around here love to raise taxes and would be raising them all the time if it wasn't for a little thing called voter backlash. They just need to come up with an excuse the news media can spin and sucker most of the public into thinking that it may be a good idea, and bingo! taxes are raised. Whether it's 'For the Children' or so a bunch of overpaid jocks can play a game, it happens too f-ing much.

    3. Re:Infrastructure by the lowest bidder by fatbastard10101 · · Score: 1

      Take a look at whose using the water (and electricity, but that's another story). Industrial uses dwarf residential ones. Many times industrial processes don't require drinking quality water, but use them anyway. Industry also produces end-products that are more dangerous than any coming out of the home. This disconnect between the user (consumer) and the use keeps all that waste hidden.

      Fun water fact: Skipping that burger for lunch three times saves as much water as skipping showers all year.

    4. Re:Infrastructure by the lowest bidder by SimJockey · · Score: 2

      Yep, last plant I worked at was fairly isolated and had it's own water treatment plant. One system for plant water and one system for "people" water. One was 100x the size of the other, guess which.
      An interesting thing I saw in Saudi Arabia (where water is a bit harder to come by) is that even households have two separate water supplies. One for drinking and one for laundry, flushing toilets, lawns, etc. Much less water has to be treated to drinking water quality.
      The problem with infrastructure (as evidenced by this article) is that in most peoples minds, it is fixed. Even the people responsible for running it have a lot of inertia to overcome to change things.

      --
      Laugh while you can, monkey boy!
  29. obligatory Microsoft = evil link to the story by NixterAg · · Score: 0, Offtopic
  30. Re:hm by nomadic · · Score: 3, Informative

    We get our water from the Croton system; none comes from the Hudson River anymore, which is probably a good thing. Let's just say I wouldn't want to let any of it get on my skin, let alone in my mouth.

  31. Kinda reminds me.... by El+Pollo+Loco · · Score: 1

    For some reason, it kinda reminds me of Fantastic Voyage. Nevertheless it is quite cool. I guess the next logical step would be to build a robot to actually do the repairs as well.

  32. Our Goverment at work by halo8 · · Score: 1

    How is it our Goverment can take 10.. !10! years for somthing like this.. yet takes NO TIME at all to pass legislation like the SSSCA or the DMCA

    i dunno if i mean this to be funny or insightfull, i dont know.. i just dont get.. really dose any one get it? i dont.

    --
    The More Knowledge you have the Luckier you Get- J.R. Ewing
  33. IT RUNS LINUX by halo8 · · Score: 0, Offtopic


    IT RUNS LINUX TO

    now if this aint a karmawhore post.. i dont know what is =P

    --
    The More Knowledge you have the Luckier you Get- J.R. Ewing
    1. Re:IT RUNS LINUX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you want an extra 'o' on 'to' there buddy, then you can have your karma

  34. Alligator by Drakula · · Score: 2, Funny

    Maybe they will find that baby alligator I flushed down the toilet back in the '80's...

    --
    "It's comin' back around again..." -RATM
  35. MEEPT!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is a rivet. a rivet of life. It exists as a thread between two infinities.

    Kappaspace has rejoined.

    meeptspace now has a rival. Single letters of the alphabet. So few letters.

    meeptspace is a dying force. Kappaspace , with it's powerful alphabet no longer needs meeptspace.

    BEEPO has become my master. meeptspace is close to answering to Kappaspace.

    The wisdom has prevented this, so far, for what chance do letters have against the numbers that discovered them.

    Conclusions are to be drawn.

    MEEPT!!

  36. Bad pun ahead by Pengunea · · Score: 2, Funny

    Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

    (waits for the forehead slapping and groaning)

    --
    Starkle, starkle, little twink.
  37. Re:Hello I am Peter NOrth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yup he is actually 100% homo. He just does the straight stuff for bucks..

  38. Re:hm by gartogg · · Score: 1

    It's a joke, not an annoying correction.

    --
    I'm a concientious .sig objector.
  39. Re:hm by MarkLR · · Score: 1

    What's the point of this supid stat?
    What are you trying to state. If you are arguing too many people are getting hurt in the Middle East fighting why break it down by nationality? If you are arguing the higher number of death on the Palestinian side is what is important then would change their conception of who is "right" or "wrong" if groups like Hamas had their way and were successful in killing hundreds of Jews?

  40. Re:posta primera by norculf · · Score: 1

    Lobster Spaghetti dude.

    I wonder if I spelled that right...

  41. Unreasonable Search & Seizure / Due Process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which of the above constitution items don't you understand?

    If I am deprived via regulations or law of the use of my property I deserve compensation.

    Simple one-line Environmental slogans sound good and are fun to say you want them...but they transfer civil liberties/freedom from citizens to the government....

  42. Whom do you trust? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Liberals: I trust the EPA and hate the Military
    Conservatives: I trust the Military and hate the EPA

    They're in the same orginization...and should be viewed with equal spepticism

  43. So bring suit... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 3, Informative

    We can't even put ONE house on the aforementioned 7 acres. They won't even budge 1 bit.

    So sue them under the 5th amendment "Takings" clause of the Constitution.

    - You have their assessment - and the standard for assessed valuation vs. sale price, and comparable values from sale prices of houses in the area that have sold recently that would be similar to what yours would be if you could build it.

    - You also have comparable values for swampland with restrictions from the same area.

    So sue the agency that is blocking you for the difference.

    This has been EXTREMELY successful in the recent past, thanks to some supreme court decisions relating to a situation in California. (A church camp burned down. The zoning board blocked permits to rebuild for years while considering whether to allow rebuilding at all. The church sued for the reduction of the value to the property (value of property where you can build a camp - value of property where you can't build a camp). The Supreme Court agreed with them, establishing the doctrine of "partial taking".

    So look up that case, find a good lawyer who understands it (or the one who DID it), and start a suit.

    One of three things will happen:

    - They do an about-face and grant you your permits. (You'll have your land value back, less fees for the lawyer to send a letter and maybe start the suit.)

    - You win. (You'll have your land value back, less the lawyer's fees for running the suit - and you may be able to collect that, too.)

    - You lose and lose on appeal. (You're out the cost of the case. But you have the satisfaction of dragging the bureaucrats through the courts for a while. B-) )

    (And while you're at it, think about a civil rights suit: "Denial of Civil Rights under Color of Law.")

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  44. FCD #3 by Joe+U · · Score: 1

    And after this is fixed, New York can finally repair Flood Control Dam #3.

  45. hmm... by supernova87a · · Score: 2

    So aren't they not supposed to be posting stuff like this on the internet anymore where some loony may get a hold of it and try something stupid?

    1. Re:hmm... by geekoid · · Score: 2

      why should I be labeled with the epitaph 'looney' just because I have a pet halabit...

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  46. Re:hm by Sabalon · · Score: 2

    When I was in college, I remember sitting on a dock on the hudson and some freshmen came down, stipped down to their undies and jumped in, got out, got dressed and walked off.

    I think I still have nightmares about them. Ewww...

  47. Re: Selling Air by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Sorta Off Topic ... blah blah blah


    Next thing you know they'll be selling clean, purified ,all-natural "Spring-Air" to people living in LA, Houston and other heavily polluted cities.


    All ready here. They are called Oxygen Bars and can be found in a number of major cities such as Cincinatti, Honolulu, Hollywood, Seattle and Ft. Meyers. If you want to open your own Oxygen Bar you can hook up with these people
  48. Re:hm by linzeal · · Score: 1

    The point is to show what state-sponsored terrorism over a prolonged time versus a grass roots terrorist system reflects in bodycount. It reflects quite clearly that one inflicts far more causalities when they use m-16s against rock throwers and bombs against snipers.

  49. The phallus sub by Sabalon · · Score: 2

    After looking at the picture of the sub, it makes me think that is the kinda stuff Gulianni worked so hard to get out of times square.

  50. Re:hm by nomadic · · Score: 1

    Uhhhhh.....disturbing.

  51. Re: Selling Air by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mod this down! This guy's post is full of goatse links!

  52. The meme is killing me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The meme "that said" gets way over used, and it doesn't add much to content. Example:
    I'm gonna say something here

    That said, I'm gonna say some other stuff here.
  53. dewater=collapse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Expect this aqueduct to collapse about 5 seconds after they shut down the water flow. Given the age and status of this thing, it's guaranteed.

    Right now, the only thing keeping it together is the WATER PRESSURE pushing on the sides to get out... It's holding the whole shebang together... And leaking out around the edges... Some goes around pieces entirely, some create sinkholes, some create underground rivers, etc...

    As soon as you stop the pressure, those pieces will fall out...

    How do I know this? Because it happened right here in Chicago a few years ago... In our zeal to kill off those pesky zebra mussels, some mental giant decided to shut off the water flow, thread a line that would feed chlorine to the intake to kill the mussels, and then kick the water back on...

    Problem? Yeah. This particular tunnel was built a zillion years ago OUT OF BRICK. Ummm, the mortar was long since gone. Held together by sand, dirt, clay, some mud, and oh yeah, water pressure! Remove the water pressure, and ummm, well, the thing collapsed... Right under a part of Lake Shore Drive - which then had to be closed off, ripped out, reconstructed, filled in, repaved - all in the middle of the fucking summer... oh joy, it was lovely in traffic...

    Last I heard, the engineering firm didn't get paid, got sued, and the engineer that came up with the idea lives in a box under Lower Wacker Drive where he belongs...

    Even if the thing in NY is made of concrete - it's apparently in such wonderful shape as to be leaking and it's likely to collapse.

    I'd say that the best thing to do is to take the little remote sub through there and see what's what... Then reinforce those areas that are in poor shape somehow... Keep digging out the new tunnel, and when it's 100% up and online, take this sucker off-line and fix it right - maybe relining the whole thing... The one thing you can bet on is that it's going to be a clusterfuck of problems from all the leaking - all those spots will have to be identified and addressed before it can be brought back to life...

    Best of luck...

  54. Anyone understands these units? by Rotaluclac · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    This may be a nice article, but who is able to understand it? Except for Americans, that is. A million "gallons" - what's a gallon? A diameter of 13 feet - how large would that be?

    Being a member of the majority of the world's population, I do not use local USA units. My country abides by the agreement to use only standard units. The USA signed the agreement too - but it seems some countries cannot be trusted even if they sign an agreement.

    (Sorry for the inflammatory language - just getting tired of continually being forced to learn someone else's system. And still strong enough to resist!)

    1. Re:Anyone understands these units? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      us brits understand what 13 feet is, we do however have problems when they decide a gallon is a US gallon, not a rest-of-the-world gallon..

    2. Re:Anyone understands these units? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      13 feet = 4 meters
      1 gallon = 3.8 liters

      sorry we can't all agree on a universal standard....

    3. Re:Anyone understands these units? by Rotaluclac · · Score: 1

      > 13 feet = 4 metres
      > 1 gallon = 3.8 litres

      I wasn't really asking what those strange units mean.

      > sorry we can't all agree on a universal standard...

      We can. We did. All countries in the world signed the agreement to ban non-metric units. Even the USA.

      Over here, we used non-metric units too, but as a consequence of this international agreement they were outlawed.

      There are only three countries in the world that cannot be trusted: the USA, Belize, and one country of which I forgot the name.

  55. The Gold in the WTC wreckage. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If there is a third water tunnel, how come the cops where able to retrieve the gold before any robbers? Jeremy Irons must have been sleeping between September and January. Just imagine: the potential for the heist of the century, and they just let it pass!

  56. Alternative by Afty0r · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You know, it might just be because I'm from the UK, but I'm having a very hard time working out why they are building a tunnel to pump more water into New York.

    I took a look at the map of NY/NJ here : http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/wsmaps.html and the surrounding area showing the aqueducts and I noticed this big, jagged blue line running vertically down the map. At first I thought this might be a misprint, or an ink leak, but it's labelled 'Hudson River'.

    Imagine a river! A huge, great big river running right to New York city - someone had better tell the mayor quick, because apparently no-one else has noticed it yet.

    For those of you not clued up, rivers are natures viaducts, they transport huge amounts of water from place to place, always going downhill - I'm willing to bet that Hudson river has more than enough drinking water in it for the whole of New York! For those of you who are sceptical about this whole point, there's also an ocean nearby - far nearer than the reservoirs - now you don't get much more water in one place than an ocean!

    1. Re:Alternative by Una · · Score: 0

      Man...
      If you had ever seen the Hudson, you'd think twice about posting such a comment.

      I dont care what kind of filtration they did to that, Id sure as hell never drink tap water again if they were to get water from the Hudson.

      Thats some naaaasty ass water there.

      --Una

    2. Re:Alternative by mpe · · Score: 2

      Imagine a river! A huge, great big river running right to New York city - someone had better tell the mayor quick, because apparently no-one else has noticed it yet.

      Maybe the water from the tunnels is cleaner and requires less treatment than river water.

      For those of you not clued up, rivers are natures viaducts, they transport huge amounts of water from place to place, always going downhill - I'm willing to bet that Hudson river has more than enough drinking water in it for the whole of New York! For those of you who are sceptical about this whole point, there's also an ocean nearby - far nearer than the reservoirs - now you don't get much more water in one place than an ocean!

      Sea water isn't drinkable...

    3. Re:Alternative by jeek · · Score: 1

      The Hudson is extremely toxic. Lots of chemicals have ended up in that water.

      --
      If you want to be seen, stand up. If you want to be heard, speak up. If you want to be respected, sit down and shut up.
    4. Re:Alternative by geekoid · · Score: 2

      very easy:
      drink water from the Hudson, you die.
      drink sea water, you die.
      Maybe the sea water the surrounds your island is drinkable, but our sea water isn't.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  57. Excellent... by Salsaman · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    ...but will there be a miniature Raquel Welch on board ?

  58. Put weapons on that sub by PegQuin · · Score: 1

    Cool, arm that puppy and we can finally kill off the menacing albino alligators!

    --
    PegQuin--I've got a sneakin' suspicion
  59. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  60. They allready sell air by fred911 · · Score: 1

    When was the last time you went into a service station and got free air to fill your tires with?

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  61. All well and good by sharkey · · Score: 3, Funny

    But how is it armed? What will it do if it encounters Ch&#252ds?

    --

    --
    "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  62. Re:Alternative (you're joking, right?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
    Evidently the state of education in the UK is even worse than that in the US.


    For those of you not clued up, the ocean is salty! Yes, I know that's amazing, but it's absolutely true.


    ...now, what do you suppose they have to do to the ocean to make it drinkable? That's right, desalination!


    ...and how do you think they desalinate large volumes of water? Yes, with spectacularly huge quantities of electrical power! The kind of power that NYC doesn't really have to spare!


    Woooo! Here's a clue for the UK twits in the audience: go take a drink out of the Thames, and let us know how you like it before you go suggesting anybody use the Hudson for a drinking source.

  63. Trivia Question of the Week.. by TheNarrator · · Score: 1

    What where wetlands called before they were called wetlands?

    Swamps.

  64. Re:hm by circletimessquare · · Score: 2

    Poughkeepsie has been getting all of its water from the Hudson for over a century. The water is meticulously checked for every contaminant they can think of. No problems. Ever. The Hudson gets a bigger dis than it deserves I think.

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  65. Re:Viaducts? by tchdab1 · · Score: 1

    Viaducts?
    Via - ducts?
    Via-no-chicken?
    Via-no-horse?