Slashdot Mirror


What Happened To the Bay Bridge?

farnsworth writes "Tony Alfrey has put together a fascinating page with some history, analysis, and possible explanations for what ultimately went wrong with the recent emergency repair of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. The bridge has been closed for days and is not scheduled to open for days to come, hugely inconveniencing more than 250,000 people a day. His analysis touches on possibly poor welding, a possibly flawed temporary fix, and the absence of a long-term fix or adequate follow-up by Caltrans, the agency responsible for the bridge. Slashdot is a great engineering community; what other insights do you have on the bridge situation?"

407 comments

  1. First Failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Forgot to fasten those cables, eh?

    1. Re:First Failure by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Forgot to RTFA, eh?

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    2. Re:First Failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      have you ever had two cocks in your anus at the same time?

    3. Re:First Failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it was lovely! ;)

  2. still dead! by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 3, Funny

    For several work mornings the headline on "the new" CNN.com has been "Bay Bridge still closed."

    In my head I hear it in the voice of Chevy Chase.

    "General Francisco Franco is still dead!"

    1. Re:still dead! by Prien715 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Slashdot is a great engineering community

      He must be new here;)

      --
      -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
    2. Re:still dead! by tsm_sf · · Score: 4, Funny

      He must be old here.

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    3. Re:still dead! by JWSmythe · · Score: 4, Funny

          Aw, everyone knows Slashdot is full of experts. Even if we don't know what we're talking about, we'll still pretend to be experts. Well, until a real expert speaks up and makes us look stupid. :)

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    4. Re:still dead! by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 4, Insightful

          Aw, everyone knows Slashdot is full of experts. Even if we don't know what we're talking about, we'll still pretend to be experts. Well, until a real expert speaks up and makes us look stupid. :)

      Pshuh, I don't need an expert to make ME look stupid !

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    5. Re:still dead! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They need to open source the bridge and put it under the GPLv3 license! That will fix everything.

    6. Re:still dead! by nacturation · · Score: 1

      It's, ah... probably pining for the fjords.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    7. Re:still dead! by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, then, you ARE the expert....

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    8. Re:still dead! by icannotthinkofaname · · Score: 1

      Pinin' for the fjords, what kind of talk is that? Look, why did it fall flat on its back the moment I got it home?

      --
      Let q be a radix > 1. I am in ur base-q, killing 10 d00ds.
    9. Re:still dead! by cloudmaster · · Score: 1

      You're already modded up, so I'll just give you an "old here" smily face.

      :)

    10. Re:still dead! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's "Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead."

    11. Re:still dead! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if we don't know what we're talking about, we'll still pretend to be experts.

      Paging Jon Hodgman... John Hodgman, white courtesy phone...

    12. Re:still dead! by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      You mean Generalissimo?

    13. Re:still dead! by TheBeowulf · · Score: 1

      I don't know about "experts" but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night...

    14. Re:still dead! by David+Gould · · Score: 1

      hehe, second that.

      --
      David Gould
      main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}
    15. Re:still dead! by zebu111 · · Score: 2, Funny

      shit happens people... like anyone here could fix it the worse part for me is i cant get to my drug dealer in Oakland

    16. Re:still dead! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the quote is:
      This just in!: Generallisimo Francisco Franco is still Holding His Breath.

    17. Re:still dead! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      THIRD WORLD PEOPLE = THIRD WORLD COUNTRY.

      THAT is what happened to the Bay Bridge. But liberal idiots will continue to LIE until the entire United States collapses under the weight of the fucked up, worthless, criminal and STUPID third world SCUM.

    18. Re:still dead! by zonker · · Score: 0

      I'll third that. ;p

    19. Re:still dead! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah clearly you're an expert at that. :)

    20. Re:still dead! by mr_java66 · · Score: 0

      Me neither, I can look stupid and insipid without the need of an expert. But it always is helpful to have a pro. ;-)

  3. You haven't seen anything yet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On November 10, undersized gusset plates, increased concrete surfacing load, and weight of construction supplies/equipment are going to cause an outright collapse the likes of which have never been seen. That's what you get for building on fluvial ground. The saving grace will be that nobody is on it!

  4. Speaking as the owner, I'm furious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Four years ago I bought that bridge along with a package of subprime mortgages to highly qualified homeowners.

    1. Re:Speaking as the owner, I'm furious by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      Four years ago I bought that bridge along with a package of subprime mortgages to highly qualified homeowners.

      Their qualification was a pulse, right?

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    2. Re:Speaking as the owner, I'm furious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pulse optional.

    3. Re:Speaking as the owner, I'm furious by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Four years ago I bought that bridge along with a package of subprime mortgages to highly qualified homeowners.

      Their qualification was a pulse, right?

      Pulse, absence of. Check.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  5. Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot is a great engineering community

    With all due respect, I think you should reconsider your assertion.

  6. INAE by neoform · · Score: 0

    I'm not an engineer, but I suspect there was a lot of cost cutting going on by all parties involved.

    --
    MABASPLOOM!
    1. Re:INAE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently, according to some parties there are no qualified American civil engineers and civil engineers from India need to be allowed into the US. Afterall, look at the contributions of the best and brightest from India to information technology workers in the US.

    2. Re:INAE by mikael · · Score: 1

      But not as bad as these pictures:

      There I fixed It

      101 simple and efficent solutions for all types of repair from leaky water bowls to damaged utility poles and computers.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    3. Re:INAE by sacdelta · · Score: 1

      Cost cutting is not the issue. Time is.

      Political pressure to not impact the commute is severe. The cost to productivity for each work day the bridge is closed is in the millions.

      They would have gladly spent more money if it meant getting the bridge open sooner. They rushed it the first time, hopefully they took the proper amount of time this try.

      --

      Brought to you by: "Al"toids - the curiously weird mint.

    4. Re:INAE by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      I'm not so sure.. while nobody likes a fucked up commute, I'm sure "we want to be sure its done right so tonnes of metal do not come crashing down in the middle of rush hour" would cause most reasonable people to calm down.

  7. No worries about the Bay Bridge! by schmidt349 · · Score: 1, Funny

    If you're interested, I can get you a great deal on a used bridge here in NY to replace it. Shipping and handling from Long Island not included.

    1. Re:No worries about the Bay Bridge! by Bitmanhome · · Score: 3, Funny

      Bridges aren't that expensive, it's the assembly and installation that kills you.

      --
      Not that this wasn't entirely predictable.
    2. Re:No worries about the Bay Bridge! by uncqual · · Score: 1

      ...and the repairs

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    3. Re:No worries about the Bay Bridge! by Yonzie · · Score: 2, Funny

      Bridges aren't that expensive, it's the assembly and installation that kills you.

      ... so it's like buying Ikea?

  8. And where did the retro-fit funds go? by ttimes · · Score: 5, Interesting

    McSweeny's has a great article on this, broad reaching in its investigation of the many problems at hand. One thing that troubles me: I have seen many times in the California University and Transportation groups, failure to use earthquake retro-fit funds - they simply use them elsewhere. Its only when a problem like this arises that we learn they have not been used.

    1. Re:And where did the retro-fit funds go? by Renraku · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Where did they go? Elsewhere.

      Children have been pulling this scam since money existed and they were given money. Give them some lunch money and watch them go and spend it on something non-lunch related, then come back and cry to their parents saying they don't have lunch money. So you can be a heartless parent and make them go hungry and get laughed at by their friends but learn their lesson, or you can give them some more money so that their behavior is reinforced.

      Obviously a child being hungry for one day is somewhat less on the 'bad things' scale than thousands of people having to drive an hour away to get across the bay. We can't throw all of these civilians to the wolves and fuck up their lives for years to come, but we can't reward the behavior by just giving them more money. Perhaps the governator needs to install an oversight group to make sure that earmarked funds are used for exactly what they're earmarked for.

      --
      Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
    2. Re:And where did the retro-fit funds go? by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, they're using those earthquake retro-fit funds, in fact before this happened, they were already projected to go way over-budget by the time the new bridge was finished.

    3. Re:And where did the retro-fit funds go? by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I noticed that on the bay bridge dot org web site they had a bunch of high production value movies, animations, etc. presenting the bridge as well as the construction efforts. These aren't cheap to produce. I wonder how much money is wasted making beautiful 'feel good' presentations that could help reduce costs... maybe this is where some of the funds go. I suspect there are a ton of projects that California runs where they have spent several hundred thousand or even millions on 'feel good' movies and web sites. I'm not saying keeping the public informed is not important. But it kind of looks like they think because they have Hollywood they need to make the audiovisual aspect Hollywood grade. Or maybe it is a way to employ all the film school graduates and keep them off the street. It just seemed a tad much to explain that they are building a bridge.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    4. Re:And where did the retro-fit funds go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You've never worked in government have you... Government are sheep, they're dumb, and have no thoughts of their own... If they don't have pretty pictures, and 'feel good' presentations, along with environmental, and doomsday studies, they don't approve anything. Politicians are dumb, in order to get anything approved you have to make them feel smart, but giving them pretty pictures, they feel smart, and are willing to dump money into them

    5. Re:And where did the retro-fit funds go? by PotatoSan · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the governator needs to install an oversight group to make sure that earmarked funds are used for exactly what they're earmarked for.

      Of course, we'll also need an oversight group to make sure that the oversight group is doing what they're supposed to be doing.

    6. Re:And where did the retro-fit funds go? by shentino · · Score: 1

      Better yet, instead of giving them funds, give them vouchers that can only be spent at approved vendors.

    7. Re:And where did the retro-fit funds go? by BitZtream · · Score: 1, Interesting

      We can't throw all of these civilians to the wolves and fuck up their lives for years to come

      Why not? Why am I responsible for their bad planning? We regularly throw people to the wolves because they live on the wrong side of the tracks. This is no different.

      They can move, its really not hard. Its also not my responsibility to take care of those that are more than capable of taking care of themselves.

      You are okay with punishing children to make them learn their lesson, but when they become adults we're supposed to bail them out? WTF kind of logic is that? At least kids have the excuse of ignorance and lack of experience. Its our job to teach them and make sure they aren't actually harmed. Its is our job to bail out idiot kids when it gets to a certain point, thats part of parenting. Its not our job to bail out idiot adults.

      Let them suffer. Maybe they'll get the clue that living in an overcrowded city and driving ridiculous distances every day is a bad idea. Maybe they'll spread out a little more and work a little closer to home, thus lowering pollution generation far more than any hybrid or electric vehicle will do.

      I'm not real sure how this is going to fuck up their lives for years. Having to move to find a job is rather common, interestingly enough, people used to do that by default. Civilization helped change that, farming allows for us to stay in smaller areas and do less roaming, but the reality of it is, people moved to find supplies long before we had cars and highways.

      'Its Hard' is a cop out. Life is hard, get over it and stop expecting someone else to fix your problems.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    8. Re:And where did the retro-fit funds go? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1

      This is just an extension of the state government's usual spendthrift habits. They've been taking the gasoline tax, intended for road repair and expansion, and spending it on all manner of non-road related projects.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    9. Re:And where did the retro-fit funds go? by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      I sincerely doubt it's hundreds of millions.

      In fact, pictures/videos/documents seem like a great way to increase transparency, which I think we can all agree is a very good thing. In this case, there's an abundance of photos and video showing the original repair made last month that should help diagnose the exact causes of the failure -- it would appear that the repairs were installed correctly, but designed improperly.

      I could imagine that the engineers and project managers take quite a bit of photos/video for their own use anyway. Might as well take the time to do it properly, and make the results available to the public. It's not like California has any shortage of unemployed artists and photographers who are willing to work for cheap.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    10. Re:And where did the retro-fit funds go? by bvankuik · · Score: 1

      My dad ran his own company for twenty years so has lots of stories. Just a couple of weeks ago he told me one very similar.

      He has a supplier that only partly delivers. The guy says he has trouble with his upstream supplier, says that material costs have risen unexpectedly and says that is the reason he has trouble delivering. My dad does not want substandard work so he pays some more.

      As a gut feeling he drives over to the guy his site and spots the foreman. My dad asks the foreman, where is the material for my project? I paid your boss some extra cash? Foreman says there is no material for my dad's project, that material over there is for another project which also had not been running smoothly.....

      If you want to make sure that money is spent on the right items, do not pay money. Instead pay the bill. But that is not always possible...

    11. Re:And where did the retro-fit funds go? by bvankuik · · Score: 1

      When we bought our to-be-built house, we received a brochure and drawings which In my estimate would probably cost between $800 to $1200. That's for an appartment costing $350K close to the center of a big city.

    12. Re:And where did the retro-fit funds go? by Xest · · Score: 1

      I was going to say:

      "As a Brit, I have to ask. Why the fuck does a bridge need a website?"

      Then I found this:

      http://www.towerbridge.org.uk/TBE/EN/

      So don't worry, it's apparently not just the US that builds websites and creates "new media" for bridges.

      I mean, come on, it's a bridge, it's used to cross something that would otherwise be difficult / impossible to cross. Does it really need to be anything more than that? As you say, it all seems like quite a waste of money that could be better spent elsewhere. Even if the bridge has some historical element to it wouldn't it be better to let a museum central to the whole of the city handle that?

    13. Re:And where did the retro-fit funds go? by GWBasic · · Score: 1

      But it kind of looks like they think because they have Hollywood they need to make the audiovisual aspect Hollywood grade

      I get the impression that you've never met an "entertainment person". They can't tell the difference between entertaining people and real work.

    14. Re:And where did the retro-fit funds go? by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      I never said hundreds of millions. Read it again.

      However, when this is done across all of California for various projects, it probably does cost the state hundreds of millions. One of the videos had a guy 'hosting' a show about the bridge. And intimated there would be more videos like that. It was not amateur hour either, and probably had a healthy budget in at least the tens of thousands. This stuff isn't cheap to do like that. And the web animations and graphics shows. You should know as well as I that web designers putting together high grade animated graphics are also expensive; to the tune of around a thousand or more a day. And that's whether the graphics guy gets the money or the contracting firm he belongs to. You know a good web designer of any stripe won't be working for government pay. Anyway, each video I saw there likely took a few weeks to create each. Add this up across the state... Static pictures and text will get the idea across and keep it open to the public. As far a doing it right... I already said that about unemployed artists... they want to do it right and that costs money. Just because you are unemployed, when you get work you can't sell yourself cheap. Otherwise it drags down the market for everyone else as well as for any future job you might try for.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    15. Re:And where did the retro-fit funds go? by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      I thought they were going to build a new eastern span?

    16. Re:And where did the retro-fit funds go? by Eric+S.+Smith · · Score: 1

      Maybe they'll spread out a little more and work a little closer to home

      I think you'll find that those two things don't usually go together.

  9. Temporary fix insufficent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    They should have used duct-tape!

    1. Re:Temporary fix insufficent by oldhack · · Score: 1

      Curb your enthusiasm. That'd be like shooting a million dollar cruise missile to take out $10 tent.

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    2. Re:Temporary fix insufficent by 24-bit+Voxel · · Score: 1

      we could duct tape 5 cruise missiles together and take out even more tents.

  10. Looks like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nobody is going to want to purchase it any time soon. Just the latest victim of our current economy I guess.

  11. Rushed by XPeter · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Things like this can't be rushed, plain and simple. Carefully executed planning is what's needed to take on these types of projects.

    Sure the commuters will have to wait a little bit longer while repairs are done, but it sure beats the mess they're in now.

    --
    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has it's limits" - Albert Einstein
    1. Re:Rushed by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 3, Informative

      Things like this can't be rushed, plain and simple. Carefully executed planning is what's needed to take on these types of projects.

      What XPeter said.

      On the gripping hand, they should see if there's anything left of the civil engineering group from the old Hydro-Electric Commission in Tasmania. The collapse of the bridge over the Derwent River when the ore ship Lake Illawara collided with it was repaired by them when the department of roads weren't up to the task. The old Hydro took their sweet time to fix it, but fix it they did and it's better than new (ship-repelling caissons were added). The size and type of that bridge and the treachery of the waters within which they worked make them similar cases.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    2. Re:Rushed by XPeter · · Score: 1

      Yes Im 15, but it doesn't take much more than having common sense and living by NYC to tell that construction can't be rushed.

      --
      "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has it's limits" - Albert Einstein
    3. Re:Rushed by maxume · · Score: 1

      It takes a bit of chutzpah to use a tone that implies long experience with mega-scale public works projects.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    4. Re:Rushed by danielsfca2 · · Score: 1

      So, is your position that public works projects CAN safely be rushed? XPeter is right, and it doesn't matter how old he is. He's still right. Quit complaining about his "tone." You may have inferred long experience, but he did not imply it. He simply used common sense.

    5. Re:Rushed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about you *don't* fix it, and see how things adapt? More people use the public transport perhaps, and is that such a bad thing?

  12. #1 Reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gravity.

    Engineers still don't understand it at the quantum level, but rest assured, gravity did it.

  13. small by anonieuweling · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The USA is small. Think bigger than just the 250k people. The whole infrastructure in the USA is lagging in maintenance, care, repairs and/or replacements. The USA needs trillions to fix this problem but other shenanigans of course have higher priorities. P

    1. Re:small by neoform · · Score: 5, Funny

      The US spends $1.15 trillion a year on 'Defense', only bleeding heart liberals would want to waste any of that money on silly things like infrastructure.

      --
      MABASPLOOM!
    2. Re:small by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...or an unnecessary government run Health Care provider.

    3. Re:small by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      Amazingly, if the US were to stop picking fights with other nations in the world, they would find that they could safely reduce their military budget.

      Obligatory disclaimer: I do *NOT* think that withdrawing from Afghanistan or Iraq would be a good idea right now. The damage is done, and if you tried to leave now, there'd be a hell of a shitstorm that could end up putting somebody worse than the last government in power when the dust settles. But I do think that it's asinine to make a blanket statement that anybody who feels that the military budget should be reduced is a "bleeding heart liberal". That's like saying that everybody who disagrees with the presidency is a right-wing bible-thumping neo-con. As fun as it might be to make the comparison, it's hardly realistic.

    4. Re:small by schnikies79 · · Score: 1

      Or heaven forbid, paying down the national debt.

      --
      Gone!
    5. Re:small by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Like dealing with the aftermath of Libertarian Wealth Redistribution brought to you by Ayn Rand loving Alan Greenspan and his Investment Bankster Cronies, AKA "The Roving Cavaliers of Credit"...

    6. Re:small by eatspoop · · Score: 0

      Are you from another country? The infrastructure here is fine.

    7. Re:small by khallow · · Score: 1

      The irony of this statement is that bridge building is probably part of that $1.15 trillion spent on "Defense". There's probably a lot of other infrastructure in that huge price tag. Things like federal law enforcement, infrastructure in Iraq and Afghanistan, air flight, etc.

    8. Re:small by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      "Are you from another country? The infrastructure here is fine."

      By what standards, exactly? The people from other countries tend to have higher standards than our clueless denizens who can't be bothered to open an engineering text. How many US citizens graduate with advanced degrees in engineering? How many graduates of MIT and other top level schools are from India, Pakistan, China, or even freaking CUBA?

      The infrastructure here does suck, because we keep electing one of two parties, each of which uses our tax dollars for pork barrel projects, rather than real maintenance and improvement. How 'bout that famous "Bridge to Nowhere", made famous by Sarah Palin?

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    9. Re:small by peragrin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      well your off in a lot of ways.

      he USA is 300 million people in a land area the size of Europe who has a population of 700 million plus.

      So not only are you off to start with you are making random assumptions. Sure there is a lot of engineering work that the USA needs to update. however since we have a fraction of the population that most land areas have we have to do more with less.

      Besides having been through europe. The american system is at least 3 centuries more advanced than some of the roads, and bridges in europe where it is common for one vehicle to use it at a time s they are designed for horses not people.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    10. Re:small by j.+andrew+rogers · · Score: 1

      Infrastructure is primarily paid for by the individual states, not the federal government. What the US federal government does or does not spend is largely irrelevant; it is not as though the individual states have 'defense' as major line items.

    11. Re:small by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      To turn it the other way, if San Francisco hadn't decided to provide sex-change surgery for any city employee who wants one, they may have had money to fix their bridge.

      Sex reassignment surgery costs about $50,000 if it's done in the US and $30-40,000 if it's done in Europe. It's even less expensive in Canada, and southeast asia. It's a one-time cost.

      A bridge costs hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions, to build. The repair bill can run as much as the initial construction bill. Repair and maintenance adds up to several million dollars a year, at a minimum.

      To turn it the other way, how the hell many transgendered city officials are there in SanFran that *not* paying for it could have paid for the bridge?

    12. Re:small by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You misunderstand the US. The state of California takes care of that bridge, not the federal government. The federal government manages the defense budget.

      The problem is that politicians in the US are more interested in either using the money to buy votes or funneling that money into the pockets of their associates.

      And California is one of the most liberal states in the US. The state I live in, after 8 years of a democrat governor the succeeding republican started several large road building and repair projects.

    13. Re:small by Teancum · · Score: 1

      Amazingly, if the US were to stop picking fights with other nations in the world, they would find that they could safely reduce their military budget.

      Determining a good balance between a formidable military that scares away any would-be enemies from even thinking about invasion or causing damage to the USA, and what is simply gilding the lily of military weapons, personnel, and training is something that certainly is worth arguing about.

      There is also the tendency that when given the gift of a well trained and equipped military, that most politicians choose to actually use the military as a weapon to further their own political aims... whatever they may be. Certainly Clinton used the military to his own advantage when he was President, as did all of previous U.S. Presidents since the Lincoln administration. How ironic it was that Woodrow Wilson ran on "He kept us out of war" and plunged the USA into one of the largest wars since the U.S. Civil War.

      Iraq and Afghanistan aren't anything special when looked at through the long-term lens of history. One good thing that may come from it is that the current political leaders are war-weary in America and don't really care to start another war any time soon. It was George Washington that sent U.S. Marines into northern Africa for the first foreign war. Please explain why anything more recent is any different than that action?

    14. Re:small by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Subtlety is not your strong point, so let me say it again more clearly:

      It's not about democrats or republicans. It's not about liberals or conservatives. Both sides spend significantly more money than they have. It is a problem for all Americans, no matter what your political leaning may be.

      --
      Qxe4
    15. Re:small by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      It's not a question of subtlety. You felt the need to throw in a jab at a particular example, and suggested that had they not paid for that treatment, then they might've had enough money to pay for the bridge.

      Your point about nickel-and-diming isn't lost, but you've used a bad example to make it. In the case of SRS, as I understand it it's very difficult to prove that it's medically necessary, and among post-operative patients, the result is somebody who's much more self-confident and a much more productive member of society... the increased revenue from taxes over the remainder of their lifetimes will usually more than pay for the initial expense. Let alone the suicide rate among pre-operative and untreated transgenders, which has been estimated as high as ~50%. I have friends in that group, and they're in a very bad way, and usually don't start getting out of it until they start with HRT and towards surgery.

      So no, it's not a question of me lacking subtlety. It's a question of you pulling an example out of your ass which doesn't support your thesis. I'm not trying to disprove your point, I'm trying to call into question the specific example about transgenders that you've used, because it's not apt.

    16. Re:small by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      If infrastructure would stop breaking people, maybe the healthcare wouldn't need quite as much help. :)

      Minnesota - 13 dead, 145 injured.

      Florida - 35 dead, 1 injured.

      Washington - 0 dead, 0 injured, 1 dog dead.

      Indiana 25 injured

      Massachusetts 1 dead, 1 injured

         

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    17. Re:small by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          Just a comment on your disclaimer.

          It's the middle east. They've always been at war with someone. They always will be. By putting yourself in their area, you're an enemy. There's no way to "win", especially where there is no organized enemy.

          A requirement for entering any situation must be to have a clear cut expectation of what the goals are, and an exit strategy.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    18. Re:small by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Do you always try to attack some point that is not at all the main point? Anyone with half a brain could have deduced that a few sex-change operations would not pay for a bridge. They should also be able to realize that overspending on the wrong priorities is something both parties do. Are you trying to get into a discussion about whether the city of San Francisco should pay for such operations? Because that's a completely different topic.

      --
      Qxe4
    19. Re:small by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It was George Washington that sent U.S. Marines into northern Africa for the first foreign war. Please explain why anything more recent is any different than that action?

      I believe that was Thomas Jefferson, not Washington. The Barbary Wars were in the early 1800s, after Washington had already finished his two terms.

      However, I'll tell you exactly what's different between these wars.
      1) Back then, the Barbary Pirates were attacking American vessels with American crews, and demanding payments. Iraq never attacked America. Yes, Saddam was violating some UN rules and not being terribly cooperative, but that could have been fixed with some cruise missiles and bombs, not an all-out invasion, for much less money and without distracting us from the task in Afghanistan. And Afghanistan never attacked us either, though Al-Qaeda did. That could have been taken care of by attacking Al-Qaeda directly in their caves and training camps, without having to take over the entire country.

      2) More importantly, back in the 1800s, when we went to war, we fought to win, and didn't worry about civilian casualties. When America attacked the Barbary Pirates, they attacked them in their port cities like Tripoli, by bombarding the cities. They didn't worry about civilians, because the civilians were guilty of allowing the Pirates to stay there and run the place. In WWII, we also didn't worry much about civilians. We happily dropped tons of bombs on cities and killed civilians by the hundreds of thousands. It was their fault for allowing an evil dictator to take power over them, and we certainly didn't worry about them turning into terrorists later. We crushed them, and they became quite compliant afterwards. Now, we worry far too much about civilian deaths, which just makes it impossible to win a war.

    20. Re:small by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      First, I think you're viewing the US incorrectly. Things like highways are federal problems, not state. Even though they're managed by the states, the Federal government pays for highway building and maintenance. It takes money from the states for highway funds, then gives it right back (but not to the same states, so dirt-poor states like WV get a nice modern turnpike while rich states like CA get screwed). So don't try to pass this off as solely a state problem. However, it depends on the highway; some are entirely state-funded (like intracity highways), and others are federal (like interstates important for interstate shipping). I don't know which this particular bridge falls under.

      Part of the problem is that the states don't get that much in taxes, and the Federal government gets tons. What should happen is the IRS should be eliminated; individual citizens should not be paying any taxes to the Federal government at all, for anything. That money should be coming from the states, like it did before the 20s. Citizens of the European Union don't pay any taxes directly to the EU government; they only pay to their national governments, who in turn pay dues to the EU. Other than using Euros to pay for stuff, they have almost no individual contact with the EU government at all. That's the way it should be here. Then the states can levy taxes as they see fit (instead of trying to get it from the Federal government, and a little extra with their own income taxes), and pay for their own projects. For important interstate projects, the Federal government can get that money from states and coordinate it.

    21. Re:small by hey! · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Depends on the rate of return you can get on other investments.

      True story. I had a guy working for me who applied for a loan on a sailboat. This was a non-profit, so there were a lot of rich kids doing the noblesse oblige thing. Anyhow the bank calls, and afterward the guys says, "they turned me down".

      "Why?" I asked.

      "They screwed up. They said I didn't qualify because my income was only 40K."

      "I don't pay you that much," I said.

      "Actually 40K is my bi-weekly income, but I wanted to get a loan because my investments are returning higher than the loan interest rate."

      What you want is the net value of the United States to increase as much as possible. You want the debt to go down relative to that figure. No major corporation *ever* tries to pay down all its debt. It would be insane, because they'd be paying opportunity costs. Just like my young friend, they don't worry about just one side of the ledger. They maximize their net worthy subject to whatever limitations liquidity puts on them. Naturally, this is not an option most of us ordinary mortals have.

      What you really need to worry about isn't debt alone, but what you are using the liquidity the debt gets you to do. In other words, spending the money wisely. Spending on maintaining critical infrastructure *should* be a no-brainer. You don't say, "we're going to stop painting this very important bridge because we want to reduce our debt." That would be moronic. Likewise, even if you didn't have a nickel of debt, spending money on something that doesn't return anything is just as moronic.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    22. Re:small by moosesocks · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's only if you count Alaska, which is disingenuous at best, given that it's huge, and almost completely unoccupied. Continental Europe occupies 3.9 million square miles, while the 48 contiguous US states occupy 2.9 million square miles. However, the population density of Europe is indeed approximately double that of the "lower 48" (181 people/mi^2 in Europe vs. 94.5 people/mi^2 in the US)

      If we're only talking about the coastal regions, you'll find that the US East coast is almost continuously urban from Boston all the way down to Richmond. Europe has nothing that can compare to that sort of density.

      The west coast is a bit more sparse, although California follows population patterns very similar to what you'd see in a typical European country.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    23. Re:small by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US spends $1.15 trillion a year on 'Defense', only bleeding heart liberals would want to waste any of that money on silly things like infrastructure.

      Wrong.

      Bleeding-ass conservatives like Ted Stevens in Alaska spend infrastructure dollars, too. But in their case, it's on a Bridge to Nowhere. Then the craven, graft-ridden son of a bitch spends the rest improving his own property.

    24. Re:small by babyrat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Please explain why anything more recent is any different than that action?

      Please explain why George Washington doing it (or any other president for that matter) makes it 'right' in all instances?

    25. Re:small by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn right! Make sure your bridges are safe for our tanks!

    26. Re:small by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      learn to read.

      please.

      btw: you are happy that 70yr old bridges in America fall apart and 1000yr old 'horse bridges' in Europe don't?

    27. Re:small by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Obligatory disclaimer: I do *NOT* think that withdrawing from Afghanistan or Iraq would be a good idea right now. The damage is done, and if you tried to leave now, there'd be a hell of a shitstorm that could end up putting somebody worse than the last government in power when the dust settles"

      Ahh, someone that's never heard of the CIA. Don't you think that type of situation would be more advantageous to us in the long run? After all, it would give us even more excuse to step in and really fuck shit up, and then we'd OWN the land, the oil, and all of that silicon-rich sand.

      Rumor is the CIA funded the Taliban. A few decades of slow destabilization, plus a quick war, then remove the Taliban and put yourself in as the ruling party.

      Not that I advocate it, but seriously, can't you see the past events, take in the current ones, and see that most likely this is where it's headed?

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    28. Re:small by Khyber · · Score: 1

      it is well that war is so terrible lest we should grow too fond of it.

      There is no 'right' there is only the fact.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    29. Re:small by ewertz · · Score: 0

      Or the EPA.

    30. Re:small by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Like dealing with the aftermath of Libertarian Wealth Redistribution brought to you by Ayn Rand loving Alan Greenspan and his Investment Bankster Cronies, AKA "The Roving Cavaliers of Credit"...

      I suspect Rand would have considered Greenspan a sell-out for running the Federal Reserve unless of course it was his plan all along to damage the economy ala Fransisco for which I have seen no evidence.

    31. Re:small by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, we worry far too much about civilian deaths, which just makes it impossible to win a war.

      Words are cheap, as are the lives of little brown people.
      Oops, we're really sorry only works twice, the rest are merely appealing to the converted - who didn't care in the first place.

    32. Re:small by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Are you talking about the higher education system as "infrastructure?" That's not what most people refer to it as. There are lots of reasons to take pot-shots at our education system, but "infrastructure" usually refers to things like roads, bridges, water ways, sewer, etc.

    33. Re:small by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Compared to what?

      Ethiopia? Somalia? Even the people living in the absolute WORST areas of America have nothing to bitch about compared to people who are actually suffering.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    34. Re:small by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      No, I think we all know what Ayn Rand would have thought of the "too big to fail" argument. For instance, when she gave the example of the Steel industry being completely replaced by the new kind of steel. She prayed for their early demise, not for their all-out protection.

    35. Re:small by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      The wars are over. These are an occupation and has been for several years, regardless of what the politicians and news calls it.

      If you go back and look at your history, you'll see pretty quickly that this is what happens during an occupation, things don't just magically get better afterwords, it takes years for people to move on.

      There are a LOT of people who have been hurt, it doesn't matter if it was an accident, mistake or intentional, if you kill someones loved one, its VERY hard for them to shake your hand, hug and kiss you afterwords. Most people can never do it, I consider myself a rather logical person most of the time, but you kill one of my family members I've got a distinct feeling I'm going to resent you for the rest of my life, regardless of why. It doesn't matter if they had a gun to your head and they were about to pull the trigger, the 'there had to be another way' will remain, like it or not, logic can't always override emotion. Thats a good thing sometimes, and a bad thing sometimes.

      You are right though, we are fighting an impossible war, as long as we handicap our warriors the way we are, we'll lose. We're killing our own soldiers.

      Attacking Al-Qaeda directly is what we did. Afghanistan did exactly what you referred to in Tripoli. They protected and gave cover to those 'doing evil'. Even if all we did was take out the Taliban or Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, the country wouldn't be any better off, they'd just have a new group of warlords in place. The same is true in Iraq. Just taking out Saddam would just change the warlord in charge of Iraq.

      WWII was over 30 years before I was born. The occupation however, ended in my life time. These things don't end over night or in a year or 10, regardless of how quickly we forget.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    36. Re:small by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      right, only in the rest of the developed world can they afford health care for all......

    37. Re:small by daemonenwind · · Score: 1

      Compare the attitudes in "And Afghanistan never attacked us either, though Al-Qaeda did. That could have been taken care of by attacking Al-Qaeda directly in their caves and training camps, without having to take over the entire country."

      to

      "When America attacked the Barbary Pirates, they attacked them in their port cities like Tripoli, by bombarding the cities. They didn't worry about civilians, because the civilians were guilty of allowing the Pirates to stay there and run the place.....We crushed them, and they became quite compliant afterwards. Now, we worry far too much about civilian deaths, which just makes it impossible to win a war."

      and understand exactly how indoctrinated to left-wing political nonsense you are.
      The thing to do is exactly what we did, and by your "analysis" of the Barbary Pirates actions and WWII, you _know_ it.

    38. Re:small by Dysproxia · · Score: 1

      That's only if you count Alaska, which is disingenuous at best, given that it's huge, and almost completely unoccupied.

      But it has more than its share of bridges, I've heard.

    39. Re:small by zoloto · · Score: 1

      Very insightful. I liken it to giving a kid a stern lecture when he really needs a good ass-kicking. Sometimes you need to do what the military is good at. War. Destruction. Blaze everything in it's path until it's complete. None of this policing bullshit. If they were allowed to do their job, there wouldn't be any policing required because anyone who even thought of standing in their way (let alone get confrontational) would scare them shitless if they had their heads screwed on straight.

    40. Re:small by JavaManJim · · Score: 1

      I am only replying to save this as a placeholder for this segment/thread. Fascinating little tidbit. I would like to hear a lot more of how "hey!" thinks (about anything). An interesting mind there.

      Thanks!

    41. Re:small by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Who, exactly, designs the infrastructure? The problem with our infrastructure are really two problems - politicians who won't give up the money they steal from the taxpayers, and the engineers who don't push the system forward.

      Without a strong engineering corps, there is no infrastructure to brag about.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    42. Re:small by jamstar7 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Attacking Al-Qaeda directly is what we did. Afghanistan did exactly what you referred to in Tripoli. They protected and gave cover to those 'doing evil'.

      The situation in Afghanistan in 2001 was similar to the situation in Cambodia in 1970. Inside the capital of (Phnom Penh/Kabul), the (Royal Family/Taliban) ran things. Outside the city limits, the countryside was controlled by (the Khmer Rouge/various 2-bit warlords like the Northern Alliance). (The Royal Family/The Taliban) had effectively zero power and influence outside the capital.

      The reason why bin-Laden was so far out in the boonies (couple hundred miles!!) in Afghanistan was, even the Taliban didn't like him. Pre-Soviet Invasion, he was just some radical kid with a big checkbook, nobody really important other than having close family ties with the Saudi royals. Even the mujahadim thought he was a nutball. His real influence? About as far as the distance between his pen and his checkbook. And of course when the US demanded the Taliban immediately turn over bin-Laden, the Taliban, having just enough police to clamp down on Kabul and about as much real military to provide a couple hours' target practice to the Northern Alliance, told the US they just couldn't do that. Not wouldn't, couldn't, as in, having no capability of doing a particular thing, in this case, handing bin Laden over. The US of course instantly informed the entire planet of the 'Afghani government's refusal to hand over bin-Laden. About the only people to really listen were inside the US. Everybody else already knew that 'Afghani government' is one of those contradiction in terms like 'military intelligence' and 'jumbo shrimp'.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    43. Re:small by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      Rumor is the CIA funded the Taliban. A few decades of slow destabilization, plus a quick war, then remove the Taliban and put yourself in as the ruling party.

      The CIA funded the mujahadim, some of whom became the Taliban. Their major complaint was, as soon as the Soviets announced they were going home, Congress started putting stop-payments on their checks. They spent a couple billion arming and training the guerillas, but when it came time for the rebuild, the US was nowhere to be found.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    44. Re:small by demachina · · Score: 1

      "Now, we worry far too much about civilian deaths, which just makes it impossible to win a war."

      When the Soviet Union was at war in Afghanistan they killed civilians with ruthless abandon. It was a complete disaster. You do it in a guerrilla war/insurgency it just unites the population against you, it drives recruitment for the insurgency, it encourages civilians to hide the insurgency, and when your army is living in the middle of those pissed off civilians it is extremely vulnerable.

      Germany and Japan were modern, industrialized, urban societies. Bombing them in to the stone age was doable. When the U.S. invaded Afghanistan they found next to nothing worth bombing because Afghanistan was still in the stone age, and certainly was after the Soviets had already bombed them in to the stone age. The insurgents mostly scattered and many escaped in to Pakistan. Trying to carpet bomb a mostly rural country to kill all its civilians would be nearly impossible even if it were a good idea which it isn't.

      The fatal flaw in Afghanistan was that the U.S. let Pakistan's tribal areas operate as safe heavens just like they had when the insurgency crucified the Soviet army there. Since the U.S. supplied the insurgency against the Soviets through the Pakistan tribal areas you would think the U.S. would have known what would happen by letting them use them the same way again. It appears between drone strikes and the recent Pakistan offensive into the triable regions they just now might be trying to deny them their safe haven. It remains to be seen if it works. Unfortunately Pakistan's ISI and much of its military are openly allied with the Taliban and have been for decades. The may also be clandestinely allied with Al Qaeda so relying on them to do anything against them is naive at best. They just put on shows so they can get billions more in free money from the U.S.

      The other fatal flaw in Afghanistan is you aren't really fighting the Taliban or Al Qaeda, you are fighting about 2000 very local, tribal militias that hate occupiers, have been fighting occupiers since the dawn of time, and they are EXTREMELY good at destroying occupying armies with superior weapons, they've been doing it for thousands of years.

      --
      @de_machina
    45. Re:small by adavies42 · · Score: 1

      apple paid off all their debt (at least in the sense of bonds, iirc) several years back. doesn't seem to have done them any harm

      --
      Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
      -kfg
    46. Re:small by zoney_ie · · Score: 1

      That's just better planning as regards avoiding unbroken urban landscape in the case of Europe. Southern England and the Low Countries form a high density belt of similar geographic size (albeit broken by the English Channel) with much more population. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Population_density_with_key.png

      --
      -- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
    47. Re:small by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Partially agreed, but

      Now, we worry far too much about civilian deaths

      No way

    48. Re:small by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please explain why anything more recent is any different than that action?

      It has to do with the difference in justification with regard to the international laws of war. As opposed to the ancient justification of self-defense, which can even be used before the attack that one is defending itself from, this war relied on the altogether untried justification as a preemptive war. As far as I know no one in the U.S. tried to argue that the war fell under the traditional self-defense rule to the international community--it is just far too tenuous.

      Of course, a lot of wars are simply aggressive wars--and there have always been some of those, but the big difference with the Iraq war is the attempt to justify it as "preemptive", which as far as I know is roughly equivalent to saying that "we really don't like each other, and that you know, since we don't like each other, they might do something about it someday, so we can go invade them now."

    49. Re:small by neoform · · Score: 1

      You basically just justified the killing of civilians..

      I guess the 9/11 attackers were justified then? How about suicide bombers that walk into markets and kill a few hundred people? It must be there fault for trying to live peaceful lives.

      --
      MABASPLOOM!
    50. Re:small by neoform · · Score: 1

      Right now the US is paying about $400B to $500B in interest on its debt..

      --
      MABASPLOOM!
    51. Re:small by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US spends $1.15 trillion a year on 'Defense', only bleeding heart liberals would want to waste any of that money on silly things like infrastructure.

      it's because of Defense you are able to call them 'free'ways...

    52. Re:small by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      The other fatal flaw in Afghanistan is you aren't really fighting the Taliban or Al Qaeda, you are fighting about 2000 very local, tribal militias that hate occupiers, have been fighting occupiers since the dawn of time, and they are EXTREMELY good at destroying occupying armies with superior weapons, they've been doing it for thousands of years.

      But this is the other fatal flaw: occupation. We don't need to occupy anything. Just bomb them and be done with it. So what if some other warlord springs up to take the original's place? As long as he's smart enough to not annoy foreign powers (or allow anyone under his control and in his territory to annoy foreign powers), then everything's fine.

    53. Re:small by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Attacking Al-Qaeda directly is what we did. Afghanistan did exactly what you referred to in Tripoli. They protected and gave cover to those 'doing evil'. Even if all we did was take out the Taliban or Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, the country wouldn't be any better off, they'd just have a new group of warlords in place. The same is true in Iraq. Just taking out Saddam would just change the warlord in charge of Iraq.

      This is the crux of the problem: Who cares about people in those countries being "better off"? I don't. The point of an occupation is to exert power over a region and its governance, until it can stand on its own, in a form that you (the occupier) are agreeable to. Basically, we're trying to build western-style democracies there. It won't work. People in those regions don't want western-style democracies; they want fundamentalist Islamic theocratic governments.

      So what if they just get a new group of warlords in place? As long as the new warlords are friendlier to us (or at least don't shelter any terrorists that attack us), then everything's fine from our point of view. We're trying to do in Afghanistan and Iraq what we did in Germany and Japan, and it simply won't work. Germany and Japan were already advanced, industrialized nations, so setting up new democratic-style governments wasn't that hard. Germany for one already had such a government before Hitler turned it into a dictatorship. Afghanistan and Iraq are totally different, and simply aren't ready for that type of government. The only type of government that works there is the warlord type, as much as that sucks. If the people in those countries really wanted a better government, they'd fight for it, but they don't, so they really don't deserve it.

      We need to pull out of these countries, and any time they cause us trouble, just bomb them and remove their ability to harm us. Trying to turn them into modern nations simply isn't going to work; it's the responsibility of the people in those countries to do that when they're ready, in a few hundred years perhaps.

    54. Re:small by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      So I guess you're going to condemn the Allies for killing Axis civilians in WWII?

      Killing of civilians is an unfortunate reality of war. That's why it's best to fight a war with such ferocity that the enemy never wants to engage in another war with you again.

    55. Re:small by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps next time Omar shouldn't give us the finger, laugh at our threats, do a set of his own videos mirroring Bin Laden's taunts, mostly dare us to even try invading, and then continue to do the same even after the Ranger raid and air assault. You have a selective memory of what cam out of Afghanistan between 9/11 and the NA entering Kabul.

    56. Re:small by demachina · · Score: 1

      Its ridiculously hard to carpet bomb a widely dispersed agrarian country and accomplish anything. Especially one they start digging in and have the cover of mountains and jungles. Afghanistan has mountains, lots of mountains. We dropped more tonnage on the tiny country of Vietnam than we dropped during all of World War II and it accomplished next to nothing. Bombing only works on highly urban, highly industrialized countries with lots of easy high value targets like Germany and Japan. It worked reasonably well in Iraq during the invasion because its a country concentrated in a couple narrow river valleys and had lots of targets(bridges, command and control centers, an actual army). Afghanistan has none of that.

      --
      @de_machina
    57. Re:small by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      You have a point here. However, in the beginning, they did go after Al-Qaeda directly in their caves and in the mountains and their training camps, using some very large bunker-buster bombs, and caused a lot of damage to them. It seems like maybe they should have just stuck with that, and ignored the cities and the Taliban unless they got in the way.

      As for Vietnam, that was another clusterfuck. Just like Iraq, there was no credible threat to the USA, and again instead of trying to simply crush an enemy so they won't attack us again (which they never even did in the first place; we were the aggressors), we were trying to take control and set up a friendly government on a people that didn't want it (and worse, just like with Afghanistan, the US-backed government was corrupt, which doesn't exactly paint us in the best light).

      Unlike WWII, which we were dragged into unwillingly, these recent engagements have mostly been us sticking our noses in other countries' business. Just like the Soviets in Afghanistan, it's not going to turn out well, and I think we might as well give up and go home, just like the Soviets did, and just like we did in Vietnam. Besides, Vietnam today isn't doing too bad, and certainly didn't need our help.

    58. Re:small by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      Sigh.

      The ketchikan bridge was indeed a stupid idea, and is a great example of why we have several stages of checks and balances in our government (also a poster child for why massive omnibus bills are stupid). In any event, the bridge would have faced opposition from many other angles -- for one, the locals almost unanimously thought it was a bad idea.

      The *second* bridge to nowhere wasn't nearly as stupid. It would have opened up a large tract of undeveloped land in Anchorage, which has seen significant population growth and overcrowding in recent years, and houses almost half of the state's population. (Yes, it would have contributed to sprawl, and it would be theoretically possible to replace the low-density housing typical to Anchorage with medium or high-density blocks, although this has not stopped similar projects from going up in other cities across the US. However, urban planning in the US hasn't favored dense urban development for the past 80 years, and has only recently done so in small pockets)

      Apart from that, Alaska's got a lot of oil. Not a bad idea to invest up there. It's the one state that I'm perfectly OK with receiving a disproportionate amount of federal funding relative to its population.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    59. Re:small by duffbeer703 · · Score: 1

      You obviously know next to nothing about the US government and how it operates.

      A few things:
        - States have plenty of taxing authority
        - Pre 1920, most Federal revenue came from the taxation of imports
        - States don't go to the Federal government for money -- they administer some programs on behalf of the Federal government

      These days, smaller, more rural states tend to get screwed, as the large states have more recipients for high-dollar programs like Medicare & Medicaid.

      --
      Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
    60. Re:small by neoform · · Score: 1

      So why does the US need to spend so much more on defense than the rest of the free world?

      --
      MABASPLOOM!
    61. Re:small by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      A few things:
          - States have plenty of taxing authority

      Yes, I realize that. However, in practice, states generally don't tax that much, unless it's less-obvious taxes such as sales tax and property tax. Income taxes levied by states tend to be pretty small, compared to the Federal portion. There's a good reason for this: if states started taxing people as much as the Federal government did, people would be screaming bloody murder and shooting politicians, or at least moving out en masse.

      My proposal is that the Federal income tax should be eliminated altogether. Then the states would be free to tax their residents at whatever amount they feel appropriate (which would obviously be higher than they do now, to make up for the missing Federal funds). Federal funds can then be contributed by the states.


          - Pre 1920, most Federal revenue came from the taxation of imports

      Yes, I realize that too. Unfortunately, the US isn't too big on taxing imports any more, and it would probably result in a trade war. I still wonder how they justify customs, however: why is it that MegaCorp Inc. can import ships full of foreign-made goods and pay no customs fees, yet if I personally import something valuable for myself, I have to pay an exorbitant fee? Even worse, what if I try to bring something valuable over the border from Canada? Aren't we supposed to have free trade with them (NAFTA)? Or is that only for big companies?

      - States don't go to the Federal government for money -- they administer some programs on behalf of the Federal government

      The states most certainly do get a lot of funding from the Federal government, for example highway funds.

    62. Re:small by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2, Informative

      States don't go to the Federal government for money -- they administer some programs on behalf of the Federal government

      Let me introduce you to block grants. Sayeth the wik, "Since the 1980s, the United States government has provided large sums of money through block grants, under a policy that has come to be known as 'devolutionary' or 'new federalism.'"

      These days, smaller, more rural states tend to get screwed, as the large states have more recipients for high-dollar programs like Medicare & Medicaid.

      Nope. Rural states have plenty of poor people receiving federal benefits, plus of course there are all those farm subsidies. Most "blue states" pay more in taxes then they receive in federal spending. It's the smaller, more rural states -- the "red states" -- that generally take more then they give. There are exceptions: D.C. and Maryland are quite "blue", but with the federal government right there of course a lot of federal spending happens. Still, the correlation is strong.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    63. Re:small by duffbeer703 · · Score: 1

      However, in practice, states generally don't tax that much, unless it's less-obvious taxes such as sales tax and property tax.

      Let me guess, you're a college student who rents? Property taxes are quite obvious. In New York, I pay about $6,000 per year in city and school taxes. $500/mo.

      Sales taxes are equally obvious if you spend any money. My family probably spends about $25,000 year in non-food transactions. About $2,000 of that is taxation.

      The states most certainly do get a lot of funding from the Federal government, for example highway funds.

      That's exactly what I said. The Federal government pays states to administer certain programs -- including the Interstate highway system.

      Prior to the current US government, the country tried to do things your way under something called the "Articles of Confederation". Under that regime, the US government was at the mercy of the state legislatures to provide funds and was unable to levy significant taxes.

      Guess what? It was an utter failure.

      Tariffs and excise taxes were able to fund government operations until the 20th century, when the role of government mushroomed. In those days we had no standing army, minimal navy, no debt, no social programs, no social security, etc.

      --
      Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
  14. My insight by girlintraining · · Score: 0, Troll

    It opened in 1936. It's been up for 73 years. I'm surprised it hasn't fallen into the ocean with all the corrosion problems yet -- it should have been retired decades ago and only survives because it is a landmark, not because it is soundly built.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:My insight by ucblockhead · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Oakland Bay Bridge isn't much of a landmark, really. In any case, it is *extremely* important to note that the western span of the Bay Bridge, which is a suspension bridge, is perfectly sound, as is the landmark (but less used) Golden Gate Bridge. All of these problems are with the eastern span, which is a cantilever bridge.

      --
      The cake is a pie
    2. Re:My insight by oldhack · · Score: 1

      It may not be a pretty "landmark" like Golden Gate Bridge, but it is the most important one in Bay Area, certainly way more than the GG.

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    3. Re:My insight by ucblockhead · · Score: 2, Funny

      I agree it is important. It keeps drivers from clogging up my train ride every morning. But it isn't a "landmark" in the sense that tourists don't go to look at it. (Except for the dumb ones suckered by locals saying "it's being repainted...the gray is the primer.")

      --
      The cake is a pie
  15. Duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    That's what a bridge IS. Alexander did it the expensive way when he went to Tyre, and every single bridge since then is an attempt to connect two places further apart, or more cheaply, or, often, both.

  16. whoa by nimbius · · Score: 3, Funny

    I knew people had been talking about the state falling apart due to budget problems, but i didnt think they meant it literally

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  17. Lets see here... by Darkness404 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Lets see, when you have a pretty much bankrupt state (California), a bridge that is too necessary to fully replace without inconveniencing many people, the fact that it isn't exactly in a stable environment, with wind, rain and corrosion everywhere is it any surprise that a bridge that has been up for over 70 years needs some emergency repairs?

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    1. Re:Lets see here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Remember, this is California. They're always surprised by the obvious.

    2. Re:Lets see here... by glsunder · · Score: 4, Informative

      "In 2003, Californians sent $50 billion more to Washington in federal taxes than the state received in federal expenditures. Representing a slight increase from levels that have held steady for three preceding years, the Golden State’s imbalance set a new record for any state, surpassing the previous mark (set also by California, in 2000 and 2001) of $48 billion."

      http://www.calinst.org/pubs/balance2003.htm

      Maybe if that weren't the case, California wouldn't be so broke right now.

    3. Re:Lets see here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're in the process of replacing the entire eastern span, by building another one adjacent to the old one. It's a good thing they've already started (a bit late, but better late than never) because who knows how long the old one will last.

    4. Re:Lets see here... by FudRucker · · Score: 1

      not to mention California is earthquake prone, and there is a good possibility earthquakes rattle and shake lots of infrastructure over the years without causing visible damage but still weakening them.

      --
      Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    5. Re:Lets see here... by Alcari · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's very strange should require "emergency repairs". It should have undergone regular maintenance a decade ago, and a decade before that, and the decade before that. A pre-war bridge should be inspected regularly because it requires maintenance. The fact that it's closed due to emergency repairs is because it has either been passed by for regular repairs, or has been completely ignored.

    6. Re:Lets see here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem isn't why or how they're broke, he's just pointing out the fact that the state is broke.

    7. Re:Lets see here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All the heavily Democratic states send more to other states than they take in.

      This is because the Democrat leadership's primary agenda is to gain power by buying votes. Californians are, in effect, paying for the increased influence and power of their party leaders. When you see every bill including a laundry list of handouts and benefits to demographic groups, what you're seeing is the transfer of wealth to secure power for the Democrat party.

    8. Re:Lets see here... by caladine · · Score: 3, Informative

      Looking at that report, there are quite a few other states that see a significantly smaller "ROI" for federal funds than California (Check out NJ's 0.5, compared to Cali's 0.79). It's nothing but pure sensationalism when people talk in absolute numbers. Besides, one should look at how much money California takes in every year as a percentage of it's gross "domestic" product. Maybe if they weren't spending so much on social programs and padding their votes, they might have something left from that amazingly large take for infrastructure. Not that this is a problem unique to California or anything...

    9. Re:Lets see here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      redistribution of wealth

    10. Re:Lets see here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stunning numbers.

      What I want to know is, if 250000 cars a day pile over the Bay Bridge, tolls are one way and $5 a car (fasttrack & cash are the same I think), so this means $625000 a *DAY*. Over a year, lets ignore weekends for simplicity and being slightly conservative is roughly (5 days per week, 52 weeks a year, $625000 per day) is $162.5 million per year.

      http://bata.mtc.ca.gov seems to indicate my back of the envelope numbers are in the ballpark (114,570,347 cars across 7 california bridges, my calculation above assumes 32 million go across the bay bridge), but the site breaks down the money a little further.

      The question becomes, how much does it cost to maintain a bridge? According to the above web-site, $2 of the toll goes to seismic retrofit, which is $65 million per year. This is *improvement* budget.

      Where the fuck is our money going? It certainly doesn't seem to be the bridge.

    11. Re:Lets see here... by dodongo · · Score: 1

      The point GP was trying to make was, I think, that the negative cash flow to the federal government was approximately equal to the amount of the budget deficit for 2010. So the assertion that if there was neutral cash flow to the feds, we wouldn't have had a deficit isn't incorrect....

      I think you read the larger picture properly, but I think you got your nose too far from the computer screen for the point GP was after ;)

    12. Re:Lets see here... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Even if we're in debt we're still the 4th or 5th largest economy on the planet.

      So what does that tel you about the rest of the states, let alone the rest of the world?

      Hope that crow's tasty.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    13. Re:Lets see here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, perhaps Californians should stop being big government lefties promoting the growth of the very beast helping to bankrupt you? Just a thought.

    14. Re:Lets see here... by toadlife · · Score: 1

      You mean big government lefties like Reagan, H.W. Bush and W. Bush who's administrations oversaw the compilation of about 75% of our current federal debt?

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    15. Re:Lets see here... by herojig · · Score: 1

      Where the fuck is our money going? It certainly doesn't seem to be the bridge.

      State employee salaries and pension increases apparently...

      --
      I think therefore I can't be ~TTNH
    16. Re:Lets see here... by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      Indeed, if you've seen New Jersey's roads, it's no surprise that we receive barely any federal funding for them (and it's not for a lack of trying -- by most accounts, NJDOT does a decent job with the funds it is given)

      The blame for this gets shifted around each election cycle, but has persisted through several Democratic and Republican administrations. Plans to raise tolls by 800%, or install new tollbooths are not political sensationalism, but simply a reflection of decades of deferred maintenance, low funding, poor planning, and population growth.

      Unsurprisingly, the state is nearly bankrupt, and its younger residents are leaving in droves.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    17. Re:Lets see here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Maybe if that weren't the case,"

      So suddenly liberals are pro states rights when it suits 'em.

      And again, another case where looking a limited issue makes the poster somehow prohibited to look at the entire context of their state economy, or here, the state's interaction with the rest of the US.

      When you hold large quantities of import goods for ransom to the rest of the country, you get a payout. The Federal government asks for some it back. Hell, it's not like you can build large naval bases in the Dakotas.

      Frankly, I'm all for state rights myself. Then, farmers can charge whatever the hell they want on the worldwide market, and then we'll see who whines about where the money is going. Furthermore, we can also take back the water, which flows into your state. You can instead build desalination plants, and then you'll understand the cost of doing things.

      Kidding aside, California is a state in a country. You are PART of a country, not a country itself. You are the breadbasket of the US because you suck water from 5 or more states nearly entirely. You are a large, coastal state that was allowed to come into the union. As such, you have a massive voting block in Congress; iow, you have adequate representation. And you have blockade (as we shown several years ago) power on imports, meaning a huge amount of trade and jobs nearly must go through you state.

      You want to withhold $50 billion? Fine, allow others states to do the same with THEIR resources. You'll find your costs skyrocket. You can't even handle your costs with states nearly giving you rivers of water for nearly free.

    18. Re:Lets see here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "In 2003, Californians sent $50 billion more to Washington in federal taxes than the state received in federal expenditures. Representing a slight increase from levels that have held steady for three preceding years, the Golden State’s imbalance set a new record for any state, surpassing the previous mark (set also by California, in 2000 and 2001) of $48 billion."

      http://www.calinst.org/pubs/balance2003.htm

      Maybe if that weren't the case, California wouldn't be so broke right now.

      The report then goes on to explain how this is due to Californians making significantly more on average than people in other states, and at the same time being significantly younger (and hence requiring less Social Security and Medicare spending.) So, its not like the government is unfairly avoiding spending money there or something.

  18. Wrong audience by Noose+For+A+Neck · · Score: 5, Funny
    Slashdot is a great engineering community; what other insights do you have on the bridge situation?

    No, Slashdot is mostly made up of computer janitors; the greatest insight you'll get out of most of the posters here is, "hurrr durr, the bridge must've been running Windoze! LOL!", with maybe a little "omg the twin towers were collapsed by EXPLOSIVES!!!!"-style conspiracy theory and "THE GOVERNMENT IS BAD!!!" braindead libertarianism thrown in for color.

    --

    Software piracy is victimless theft.

    1. Re:Wrong audience by Stele · · Score: 1

      I accidentally picked the wrong moderator item, so I'm responding here to back out.

      I would have picked Insightful.

    2. Re:Wrong audience by shellster_dude · · Score: 1

      I think your name, speaks for it's self in regards to your post.

    3. Re:Wrong audience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the hell did this get positively modded? It's so blah, I wouldn't buy it for a dollar.

    4. Re:Wrong audience by stimpleton · · Score: 0

      "omg the twin towers were collapsed by EXPLOSIVES!!!!"

      No, the twin Towers collapsed from aeroplane impacts into structures previously *promised by an engineer* to withstand aeroplane impacts.

      Conspiracy no, bungling engineer at worst.

      --

      In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
    5. Re:Wrong audience by syousef · · Score: 1

      No, Slashdot is mostly made up of computer janitors

      Well janitors aren't usually asked to solve problems - they do boring repedative manual work, which is why they aren't paid so well.

      he greatest insight you'll get out of most of the posters here is, "hurrr durr, the bridge must've been running Windoze! LOL!"

      What I find particularly sad is that you've clearly just abused the community and they think you're kidding.

      ith maybe a little "omg the twin towers were collapsed by EXPLOSIVES!!!!"-style conspiracy theory and "THE GOVERNMENT IS BAD!!!" braindead libertarianism thrown in for color.

      In my experience both extremes are braindead, and as for conspiracy theories I don't see nearly as many of them here as you make out.

      As for your signature "Software piracy is victimless theft", I just can't tell you how wrong that is. First of all copyright infringement of software has nothing to do with rape and pillage, secondly since nothing is physically taken it's not theft at all, and thirdly it's not a victimless crime since the victims are the software manufacturers and distributors who might otherwise have made a profit - especially the poor schmuck who wrote the software that might be out of a job when it doesn't sell. Your signature is therefore complete legalese drivel.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    6. Re:Wrong audience by demonlapin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They did withstand airplane impact. What they did not withstand was hours of several-thousand-degree fire.

    7. Re:Wrong audience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parent is modded Funny, but sadly, it's probably more insightful than funny.

    8. Re:Wrong audience by HazMat+79 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      that promise was made when planes werent as big as the ones that ran into it though

    9. Re:Wrong audience by stimpleton · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yes, the fact these planes had fuel on-board was a unique situation, and would be an unforseen consequence of a plane crash.

      --

      In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
    10. Re:Wrong audience by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 4, Informative

      In interviews I've seen, the architects stated that the assumption was that any collision would involve a plane (specifically a 707) lost in the fog, flying slowly and trying to land. Such planes would not be fully loaded with fuel since they would be at the end of their trip, and they wouldn't be piloted by terrorists pegging the throttles at top speed.

      The scenario envisioned was more like what happened to the bomber that hit Empire State building in 1945. It wasn't that big of a deal.

    11. Re:Wrong audience by fm6 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Your comment is painfully accurate. Thing is, Slashdotters were a lot smarter when I signed up 8 years ago. There have always been Linux obsessives, conspiracy wingnuts, and kneejerk libertarians, but even they had something worth contributing now and then. There was a lot of stupid noise, but every once in a while you could have a really interesting and informative conversation with some random stranger. Now it's all just flames, rants, and temper tantrums.

      I blame changes in the moderation system. Originally, the people who participated in Slashdot the most got the most chances to moderate. Then they changed the system to have moderators chosen solely from the middle of the usage curve, so that heavy users don't get to moderate at all. This means that moderators are sporadic users with no real investment in maintaining a real conversational community.

      More recent changes in metamoderation are even worse. It's not really metamoderation at all, you just say you approve of the article or don't. Useless.

      I've had a few email exchanges with Rob on the subject. He won't even listen to suggestions for minor tweaks, like making it harder to abuse the "overrated" and "underrated" mods. (You're only supposed to use these to counteract simultaneous mods, but you often see these as the only mods on a post; people use them to avoid being metamoderated.) He won't budge from his position that everything's fine.

      I guess from a certain point of view, it is. Slashdot's traffic levels are bigger than ever, and it's probably the biggest profit center Sourceforge Inc. still has. (Sourceforge used to be OSDN, and before that they were VA Linux; the name changes represent a huge number of failed enterprises.) So Rob's first post-college job has brought him fame and fortune. What's not to like? But the original Slashdot community is dead, and I guess it's not coming back.

    12. Re:Wrong audience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the original Slashdot community is dead, and I guess it's not coming back.

      Where did it go? Technocrat is dead, and other tech sites are even more infested with idiots than Slashdot is.

    13. Re:Wrong audience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I think your grammar skills speak for itself in regards to your post.

    14. Re:Wrong audience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree.
      Unless someone is a PE (professional engineer) with experience on the maintenance of suspension bridges, their technical 'expertise' is irrelevant.
      So can an OP be a troll?
      Sorry, I forgot this is Slashdot. OP are nothing but trolls one way or another.

    15. Re:Wrong audience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bad assumption - what about a plane hitting a *goose* during take-off and needing to immediately circle
      and return to the airport. Or does the assumption assume that said plane will spray fuel all over SF and
      the Bay first?... Or that the pilot might need to keep up as much speed as possible until just a mile or
      two from landing because his other engine(s) were acting up?...

    16. Re:Wrong audience by Tomfrh · · Score: 1

      They did analyse the the potential effects of the ensuing jet fuel fire. The analysis concluded that the structure would survive. Unfortunately reality failed to conform to the design models.

    17. Re:Wrong audience by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      You left out "if Steve Jobs did the rework not only would it be right but your car would drive itself across the new iBridge 2.0..."

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    18. Re:Wrong audience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Naughty reality
      Reality should be banned......

    19. Re:Wrong audience by MightyYar · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm pulling from memory here, but I think that they did consider fuel. However, the planes today hold more fuel, they did not account for the missing (destroyed) fireproofing, they did not account for the furniture getting piled up in one area and concentrating the fire, and I don't think that they conceived that the inner wall would be breached.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    20. Re:Wrong audience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I think your grammar skills speak for THEMSELVES in regards to your post. Or maybe your grammar skill speaks for itself, if you have only one.

    21. Re:Wrong audience by chickenarise · · Score: 1, Troll

      No, it didn't withstand the several detonations that were seen many stories below the impact site. Each building took 15 seconds to fall; ignoring air resistance it takes an object 9 seconds to free fall 1306 feet, which means the buildings fell at near free fall speeds. The collapse had all of the same characteristics of a controlled demolition, and WTC 7 collapsed in the same fashion even though nothing was wrong with it. When the Bush administration was asked about WTC 7 they ignored the question. The owner of the buildings scored $4.6 billion off of insurance policies that were bought less than a year prior to collapse. I'm sure no one here believes any of this, but there is plenty of evidence out there to be obtained. Lots of eye witnesses, even air traffic controllers have talked about the bullshit that was going down during the crashes.

      --
      One convenient locations...in Africa.
    22. Re:Wrong audience by IntlHarvester · · Score: 2, Insightful

      More likely, you just personally have gotten smarter and wiser.

      Slashdot has always been filled with bogosity passing as "insight", it's always had karma-whoring (since moderation started), and it's always had trolls having a nice laugh at everyone's expense. If you were to criticize Slashdot for anything, it's not that it's gotten worse, but that its is going into middle-age without getting any better. It is stuck in that same mid-1990s adolescent "Windows drools, Linux rools, Gimmie warez" state forever and ever.

      Although I will agree with you that the moderation system is fundamentally flawed and they just don't care.

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
    23. Re:Wrong audience by ticktickboom · · Score: 0

      and no mention of boobies?

    24. Re:Wrong audience by ildon · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure the engineer assumed such a pilot would ditch in the river.

    25. Re:Wrong audience by moosesocks · · Score: 4, Informative

      During a botched takeoff, the first thing a pilot does is to begin dumping fuel as fast as he safely can. Jet fuel is similar to kerosene, which evaporates quickly in the atmosphere, usually before hitting the ground.

      Most aircraft cannot survive a landing with fully-loaded fuel tanks (unless the plane itself is carrying an unusually light passenger/cargo load).

      Also, the flight patterns around Newark, JFK, Teterboro, and LaGuardia would all avoid lower manhattan, even in the event of a severe failure or navigational obstacle. Odds are, they'd end up in the meadowlands, the hudson river, or a residential area. Briefly browsing takeoff-related aviation accidents around NYC seems to confirm this.

      The odds of a fully-laden jumbo jet hitting a building in lower Manhattan by accident are close to nil.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    26. Re:Wrong audience by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Wow.

    27. Re:Wrong audience by okmijnuhb · · Score: 1

      "They" meaning a paranoid conspiracy theorist.

    28. Re:Wrong audience by xaxa · · Score: 1

      I started reading this site in about 2001 (I've lost passwords to several accounts by now).

      I agree that the moderation system is crap. I spend far too much time reading Slashdot, so I'm probably a heavy user, and I think I have mod points more often than not. I don't often use them though -- if I'm interested enough in a discussion to moderate, I'm usually interested enough to post a comment.

    29. Re:Wrong audience by Zaphod-AVA · · Score: 1

      Whether you wanted it to or not.

    30. Re:Wrong audience by Zaphod-AVA · · Score: 1

      While the post is drivel, the irony of trivializing people responsible for maintaining complex systems in story about catastrophic failure of maintaining a complex system is fantastic.

    31. Re:Wrong audience by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Possibly I've gotten smarter and wiser, but so has the techie community in general. You no longer have so many people babbling about sovereign squatters and the end of proprietary software. In general the wingnut element in western society is on the decline, as last year's elections pretty thoroughly testified.

      Thing is, the wingnut element doesn't recognize this trend, and still likes to tell itself that it's in charge. In general, I support this delusion, since it hastens their social and political irrelevance. But they still have the ability to gang up and shout down anybody who disagrees with them.

      If I had any management skills, I'd go and start my version of Slashdot. I'll bet there are lots of disaffected people who'd like to have a forum where they can have actual conversations instead of shouting matches.

    32. Re:Wrong audience by IntlHarvester · · Score: 1

      Interesting way of putting it, and probably correct. As they have become more marginalized, they have increasingly embraced defeatism and conspiracy theories, which of course only increases their marginalization.

      Although I sorta miss the infectious optimism of the "world domination" days, when the focus was on the fun technology and not the socio-political ramifications of every damn legal clause. Again, a middle-aged disease.

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
    33. Re:Wrong audience by fm6 · · Score: 1

      You're right about the conspiracy theories. But defeatism? The right wingnuts are absolutely convinced that the Obama administration is on the brink of collapse, that the House will go Republican in 2010, and that Sarah Palin will be elected Pres. in 2012.

      Hard to believe, but true.

    34. Re:Wrong audience by eudaemon · · Score: 1

      I miss the "real" slashdot that was mostly highly educated folks educating, informing and sometimes
      debating the hard technical details of a story. That was great - I literally learned something
      every time I read a post and it was wasn't spam for a weightloss scheme or the latest wharrgabl
      conspiracy theory junk. True, there was an undercurrent of 'my OS is better than your OS' crap
      there occasionally but it wasn't until the really vocal elements on this site stopped getting
      shouted down and told to grow up that we lost it. Letting any extremist group no matter
      how much you agree with their agenda run rampant over everyone else just encourages more
      polarization and ends rational, civic debate no matter the topic because people see this
      invective filled shouting match as the norm.

      Slashdot's still a fun place to come but there's much more chaff than wheat now and we're all poorer for it.

    35. Re:Wrong audience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're saying this as if it was Republicans that were coming up with all the batshit insane conspiracy theories about 9/11. Pretty sure they were mostly Democrats with some beef against Bush.

    36. Re:Wrong audience by IntlHarvester · · Score: 1

      Oh, I thought we were talking about the Linux wingnuts :)

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
    37. Re:Wrong audience by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Well, I don't think they're defeatist either. It is true that Linux-for-everybody thing was never going to happen, but you see the True Believers on Slashdot every day, years after the initial effort crashed and burned.

      I was working at Borland when we came out with a Linux IDE. (In 2001!) Total failure. That's the nice thing about actually having to work for a living, your mistakes come into conflict with reality. I think a wingnut can be defined as somebody who can't or won't submit their ideas to that test.

  19. Lack of redundancy by commodore64_love · · Score: 1, Insightful

    San France should have two bridges (or a secondary tunnel), so if one fails or needs repair, the second can still be used. In Baltimore we have two tunnels and one bridge over the harbor, so if one fails the traffic can be diverted on the other two routes. Redundancy.

    In between D.C. and Baltimore we even have three parallel highways - I-95 and 295 and US-1. One might be closed but the other two will still be usable.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    1. Re:Lack of redundancy by ximenes · · Score: 3, Informative

      There are four bridges running east/west over the bay, it just happens that there is only one in this particular (useful) location. Also, given that the Bay Bridge has to connect to Yerba Buena island, there's not really a lot of room for another one right next to it. So there is redundancy, but you have to deal with the physical realities of the area.

    2. Re:Lack of redundancy by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      In between D.C. and Baltimore we even have three parallel highways - I-95 and 295 and US-1. One might be closed but the other two will still be usable.

      That's stretching it, even on a good day when all 3 are open!

      (If you drive through/around DC even occasionally, you'll know that I'm not speaking in hyperbole. Also, there's been a whole ton of construction lately on all 3, which is making the beltway even more treacherous than it usually is...not helped by the fact that the people who drive on it seem to drive either 40 or 80 mph, with no regard to which lane they're doing it in. I swear that road was designed to maximize the number of accidents that occur on it)

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    3. Re:Lack of redundancy by ucblockhead · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, they are currently building another bridge right next to it. These fixes are all to a structure that they hope to retire in a few years.

      --
      The cake is a pie
    4. Re:Lack of redundancy by gilroy · · Score: 1

      There are four bridges running east/west over the bay

      But only one leads to the Playtronics factory where the MacGuffinn is held...

    5. Re:Lack of redundancy by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 1

      Damn that MacGuffinn. I've been chasing it all these years and I've never seen the wretched thing.

      --
      Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
      altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
    6. Re:Lack of redundancy by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      You could always use a ferry to get to YB Island. When it comes to adding a second bridge, that's too small a population to worry about.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    7. Re:Lack of redundancy by Graymalkin · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Bay Bridge is not the only way from Oakland to San Francisco, there's the Richmond-San Rafael bridge to the North and San Mateo bridge to the south. There's also BART and various ferries and worst case scenario a trip through the South Bay and then up the peninsula. There's lots of ways into the city even if one of the bridges is out of service for some reason. The past two labor day weekends the Bay Bridge was shut down for repairs (the latest of which apparently caused the current problems).

      The positioning of the Bay Bridge is limited by the layout of both San Francisco and Oakland. The Bay Bridge already spans one of the narrowest points between the cities and is bisected by Yerba Buena Island to reduce the effective length of the individual spans. There's nowhere else to really put another bridge in the area. There's no other spots with convenient freeway locations on both sides of the bay which would require whole new sections of freeways be build which means buying out a whole bunch of land that people already live on and a host of other problems. This construction would be in addition to building a whole new bridge.

      --
      I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
    8. Re:Lack of redundancy by ximenes · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I was under the impression that the bridge had to go through Yerba Buena not to serve the island population (who are only there because the bridge makes it convenient I imagine), but because the bay is too deep and without a firm bedrock to otherwise locate the middle section of the bridge securely.

      Possibly that was only a concern when it was originally built, but regardless, you would essentially need to route it in the same path as otherwise you'd need a new landing point on the Oakland side and there's Alameda in the way.

    9. Re:Lack of redundancy by Isaac-Lew · · Score: 2, Informative

      It really irritates me when I-95 between Baltimore & DC is referred to as "the Beltway". There are TWO separate beltways in the area: the Baltimore Beltway circling Baltimore, & the Capital Beltway circling DC.

    10. Re:Lack of redundancy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhh, yep, you know your geography well...

    11. Re:Lack of redundancy by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In my experience most of the problems are in the northern half of D.C.'s Beltway. The area between D.C. and Baltimore might slowsdown but it never completely stops (except accidents of course). And Baltimore's beltway is good except for the area around I-83 (which is a poor design).

      A couple times I've suggested extending I-85 up to Philadelphia and beyond, so as to provide an alternate route for traffic (especially truckers who are going straight through from Richmond-to-Philly without stopping), but neither the Congress nor the AAA seems to hear. Oh well.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    12. Re:Lack of redundancy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, no one gives a shit about Baltimore, so whenever someone refers to "the Beltway" they mean the Capital Beltway.

    13. Re:Lack of redundancy by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      I am from Australia but looking at a map of SF it seems they has a similar problem to Sydney. They really need to kick the military off their prime waterfront real estate.

      If I lived in Oakland and I had to get to the west side of the harbour I would drive to the harbour with a sea kayak and paddle the rest of the way. Its just a shame that the Navy seems to control the best place to put a boat in the water (duh).

    14. Re:Lack of redundancy by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      You already have I-81. You want ANOTHER routing? It's not THAT busy. Anyway, upgrading 301 would be the easiest way to do it, if you had to.

    15. Re:Lack of redundancy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      have you tried driving through any of those tunnels/bridges or on those highways during rush hour? "usable" is not the word i'd use to describe them!

      - Balmer transplant in DC

    16. Re:Lack of redundancy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The past two labor day weekends the Bay Bridge was shut down for repairs (the latest of which apparently caused the current problems).

      No, not repairs. A new western approach was built in situ, and the old one was demolished (demolition occurred two labor day weekends ago). A new eastern span is being built, and a temporary S-bend roadway was installed (last labor day weekend). During this installation, the ALREADY cracked eyebar was discovered, and a temporary fix for the eyebar was installed.

      "Apparently", you like to mouth off without a clue.

    17. Re:Lack of redundancy by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      In Cracow we have 5 bridges (in reasonable distance) and if even one is blocked the whole city gets jammed beyond any hope.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    18. Re:Lack of redundancy by synnthetic · · Score: 0

      Take I-95 south from DC on any weekday after 2pm. You'll find plenty of problems there. Even the HOV comes to a stop when it merges back in.

      If I'm going north around 5pm, I'm better off doing 95 or the parkway to Baltimore, and hitting 83-N to York.. rather than taking 70-W out of DC.

    19. Re:Lack of redundancy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and worst case scenario a trip through the South Bay and then up the peninsula.

      You're forgetting the Dumbarton Bridge, south of the San Mateo Bridge, but still well north of "a trip through the South Bay".

    20. Re:Lack of redundancy by headonfire · · Score: 1

      Yeah, there are other routes, sure.

      I went on a little drive to see how bad it was: it took me, ohhhh, about... six hours total to get into san francisco via the golden gate, head south, get to and cross the san mateo bridge back east across the bay then back up north of the ggate where I started.

      Four of those hours were spent in bridge traffic. I left home at about 1:30pm and got back around 7:30pm.

      In short, the bay bridge is a really big deal. Not having it is a nightmare.

    21. Re:Lack of redundancy by univalue · · Score: 1

      Redundancy.

      In between D.C. and Baltimore we even have three parallel highways - I-95 and 295 and US-1. One might be closed but the other two will still be usable.

      Was the parallel highway system built for redundancy, where you have little to zero traffic on two of the three highways? I would say no. I bet you have heavy traffic on all three highways. That is not redundancy.

    22. Re:Lack of redundancy by colfer · · Score: 1

      The Bay is probably not suited to daily kayaking, due to strong tidal currents and high winds (the Golden Gate is a wind gap as well as a water gap). Kayaking around the San Francisco Bay Area and twice-daily tides.

    23. Re:Lack of redundancy by commodore64_love · · Score: 0

      >>>You already have I-81. You want ANOTHER routing?

      I-81 isn't anywhere near D.C. or Baltimore (it's mostly a mountain/rural interstate), and thus doesn't do anything to offload traffic from I-95. In contrast my I-85 idea would continue northward through Richmond, Washington, Baltimore, and Philadelphia, thus providing an alternate route for truckers following the Northeast Megalopolis route, thereby relieving the I-95 congestion.

      As for 301, that's not a bad idea either. Extend I-97 southward towards Dulles and you've created a near-direct Baltimore-to-Richmond connection. So let's do both.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    24. Re:Lack of redundancy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, I'm a Baltimoron, you insensitive clod!

    25. Re:Lack of redundancy by danielsfca2 · · Score: 1

      Also, given that the Bay Bridge has to connect to Yerba Buena island,

      I agree with the rest of your post except this part. Why would a second bridge made for redundancy need to connect to the unimportant rock of YBI or Treasure Island? The 500 or whatever people who live on TI certainly don't need a second bridge. Once is certainly enough.

    26. Re:Lack of redundancy by tie_guy_matt · · Score: 1

      Don't forget 29. You have to take 70 to get back to the Baltimore beltway (which ALWAYS backs up) but 29 has fewer lights so I would take it before I took route 1.

      Keep in mind that there is no (or at least not much) water between Baltimore and Washington. It is much easier to build multiple roads between cities when you don't have to build a major bridge for each one! So in addition to those 4 highways there are dozens of back roads you can take to get between DC and charm city.

    27. Re:Lack of redundancy by benchbri · · Score: 1

      >>-81 isn't anywhere near D.C. or Baltimore (it's mostly a mountain/rural interstate), and thus doesn't do anything to offload traffic from I-95. I disagree. I'm looking at I-81 right now from the front desk of a hotel. On any given night, there are guests at the hotel coming from Maine, going to N. Carolina, etc... They do this to avoid traffic on I-95. Having to deal with the constant construction on 81 is another matter entirely, though.

    28. Re:Lack of redundancy by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      301 wouldn't really help... The cruise along the Eastern shore is pleasant enough, but eventually it would merge back onto 95 and you'd still have to deal with that nightmare of a 95/495/Deleware Memorial split near Wilmington. I don't think truckers would take the extra miles that 301 requires just to miss the Baltimore traffic, while still having to tackle route 50.

      I think what we really need is a beltway all the way around Baltimore AND Washington :) Take that new ICC (route 200) and keep going! Or maybe a giant tunnel under the whole area... they do like tunnels around DC.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    29. Re:Lack of redundancy by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>They really need to kick the military off their prime waterfront real estate.

      Uh, it has been closed for over a decade now.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_Island_(California)

  20. Government Bridge by BitHive · · Score: 1

    A private one would have been more Ron Paul

    1. Re:Government Bridge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When states start digging up their streets and converting many of them into gravel roads to "save money" it's no surprise that there's a lot of people who question what the hell the states were thinking.

  21. There *IS* redundancy. by barfy · · Score: 3, Informative

    People use other bridges and the bart.

    To say there isn't redundancy, is simply silly.

    1. Re:There *IS* redundancy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might want to quote the bit claiming there isn't redundancy, otherwise your post looks like a straw man.

    2. Re:There *IS* redundancy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who crosses one of the other bridges (The Golden Gate) on a daily basis, that's only technically true. The reality is that the bay area doesn't work without the bay bridge. A drive that's normally in the 20 min range took 3 hours on wednesday. And I've heard it was worse to the south.

      It's a bit like saying you've got redundancy when you've got a T3 and a modem line...it's technically correct, but practically false.

    3. Re:There *IS* redundancy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "People use other bridges and the bart."

      The bart?!?!?!?!

      ROFLAMO

      You must be from L.A. Please go back there. You can take the 5.

    4. Re:There *IS* redundancy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I haven't lived in the bay area for a while, but doesn't BART go across the bay bridge?

    5. Re:There *IS* redundancy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would only be redundant, if any of those individual routes could on its own adequately handle the full traffic load without any significance difference. Your thinking is simply muddled.

  22. Caltrans Says by tlord · · Score: 5, Informative

    The engineering authority in charge of the bridge and repairs already gave their answer to this on the morning news (yesterday, I think):

    They found the crack. They designed the "band-aid": the saddle, T-bar, rods, etc. They had it fabricated and installed.

    In subsequent days, they went back up to look at how it was doing. They found that it was vibrating more than they thought it should: it wasn't as rigid as it was designed to be. They recognized that this would lead to fatigue and failure.

    They began designing the improved "band-aid" and planned to install it sometime in coming weeks.

    To their surprise, *perhaps* related to unusually high winds, the system failed sooner than they thought it could.

    The completed their improved design and are now installing it. (And they are counting their blessings that nobody was killed: they got lucky, that way.)

    -t

    1. Re:Caltrans Says by ctmurray · · Score: 3, Interesting

      At least when they found the flaw they recognized the danger and attempted to fix before the bridge fell down.. The I35 bridge gusset plates were seen years earlier to be warping and this clue was missed.

    2. Re:Caltrans Says by hey! · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is what you call a rock-and-a-hard-place scenario.

      Stuff suspended over people is the thing that gives the civil engineers I know nightmares. Closing a bridge like that gives traffic planners nightmares.

      You put the two together, and there's a lot of pressure to do a little wishful thinking. That the emergency field repairs on the single most important piece of infrastructure in a major city are acting in an unexpected way is the kind of news nobody wants to hear. And so it's so easy to say, "well, we can't be *sure* what's going to happen, but what's the chance it's going to happen before we get a proper fix in?"

      I can't help but think there might be parallels between the situation in California, where they're enduring a budget crisis that won't quit, and the situation as NASA where the goals stayed as ambitious as ever but the money was never there. As an engineer, I've been in situations where I've been ordered to do things for less money and time that is reasonable. And sometimes I've been successful, but even when I usually walk away from these scenarios *looking* successful, I *know* that I've left problems for the next guy that are going to cost a lot more than anything that could possibly be saved. And when management began to think of me as a miracle worker, I stopped functioning as a real engineer, because engineering is about cold, hard realities, not wishful thinking and trusting in luck (statistics, of course are a different matter).

      God, if I were Scotty, I'd have fragged Kirk.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re:Caltrans Says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They designed the "band-aid": the saddle, T-bar, rods, etc. They had it fabricated and installed.

      Instead of a "band-aid" they may want to consider a panty shield.

    4. Re:Caltrans Says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Working on an existing structure can create very complicated and unexpected behavior. Supports can settle and redistribute loads, or they can unexpectedly move when unloaded due to aging or original construction errors.

      The Contractor removed an existing 300' truss leading to the cantilever section (which begins at E1) with a new detour truss over Labor day.

      http://www.sacbee.com/288/story/1766800-a1766970-t46.html

      This allowed work to proceed on the new bridge. E1 is a fixed concrete support (E4 is the cantilever expansion pier), so theoretically the work should not have affected the cantilever, the suspended span, or the far cantilever (the one with the cracked eyebar). It could have just been fatigue, although after sitting there for 73 years it seems improbable the eyebar crack should suddenly appear during the truss switchout with no relation to the switchout itself. Are any other truss members/joints damaged?

      So now the temporary fix breaks. I have not read who did the bracket design (Contractor or Caltrans). Perhaps it was not adequately designed for fatigue, perhaps the loads are larger than expected, perhaps something moved during the truss switchout and significantly changed the loads that eyebar was trying to carry.

      The responsible thing to do now would probably be to permanently close the bridge and re-route (yes, ~250,000 vehicles a day? more?) traffic until the new bridge is complete. Remember the northern Hayward fault is only about 6 miles away from the toll plaza (the Loma Prieta fault was more like 50 miles away...). They have been dodging that bullet for decades. Now not only is there seismic risk, there is a weak link in the structure itself. Perhaps without daily traffic the entire project could be expedited and completed sooner.

  23. Closing the bridge makes it 100% safe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    If their goal was to improve the safety of the bridge, then they totally succeeded.

    1. Re:Closing the bridge makes it 100% safe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If their goal was to improve the safety of the bridge, then they totally succeeded.

      Untrue. A closed bridge is still not 100% safe. It still poses a danger to those passing underneath. For San Francisco... that's a lot of people and cargo.

  24. There simply isn't anything "wrong". by barfy · · Score: 1

    It is old, 73 years, and may take a few days to identify and repair especially after first attempt failed.

    Who says anything is wrong?

    This all seems perfectly normal.

    (I like the fact that many people here would rather their be multi-billion dollar solutions, rather than this is simply how it is).

    1. Re:There simply isn't anything "wrong". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Romans called and would like a word with you.

    2. Re:There simply isn't anything "wrong". by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As far as I'm concerned, if a piece of a bridge that has active traffic on it falls off, putting people on the bridge in danger, something went wrong SOMEWHERE.

    3. Re:There simply isn't anything "wrong". by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Yeah, but there is also a big "shit happens" component to the whole thing. Sometimes, shit just happens-- even if everybody does their job to the best of their ability, even if everything works exactly as designed, sometimes shit just happens.

      Of course, being an American, you have to instantly assign blame and sue somebody, God knows.

    4. Re:There simply isn't anything "wrong". by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      I am fascinated by this world of yours in which "shit happening" precludes something from having "gone wrong".

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    5. Re:There simply isn't anything "wrong". by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Yep something went wrong, thats pretty much accepted by any sane person. Maybe not the person you're replying to.

      We are human. We are not all knowing. We can not predict the future. We can't even model our weather patterns for shit due, unless we can store a copy of our universe in a parallel dimension or something, we'll never be able to.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  25. Bay bridge fix by globalsnake · · Score: 1

    According to the pics it seems evident to me that the cause of the crack is due to compression forces, if it was do to tension the crack would be on the top. The beam is able to rotate and shares both compression and tension forces depending on the load at the time. By using their solution and tension rods is an adequate solution for tension but the reinforcement is needed in compression so tension rods will not work, you would need something to handle the same compression forces that the beam is supposed to handle and you would need to weld it in a manner that the weld is not under stress while experiencing compression. The fix came of because the rods may be adequate to handle the tension forces, but when under compression the complete rig can come flying off even if welded. Tell them to email me I need work, not a PE but I do have a bit of experience and am able to work as a civil engineer. Tell them to send me an email at ctraveler_22@yahoo.com not 22 just personal email that I hardly use due to spam.

    1. Re:Bay bridge fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Thank goodness you're here! Judd Ascrak has been welding on this thing all night and I'm starting to think we need someone with... a bit of experience who is able to work as a civil engineer. We've been staring at our torch tips all night wondering if we should place an ad or try craigslist.

      I asked them to give you a call. Our IT guy has a bit of experience using a phone, so I'll have him set up the connection.

    2. Re:Bay bridge fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      THANKFULLY -- They are looking for a PE so.. go back to your Popsicle stick bridges and other assorted toothpick structures. I have a couple gross of drinking straws too if you'd like to incorporate them into your work -- they might actually compress better! :p

    3. Re:Bay bridge fix by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I think that the trussed structures on the bridge are for compression. It would be... unusual for these eyebars to take much compression - they are thin and won't have much strength in compression.

      May I ask why you think this crack is caused by compression?

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    4. Re:Bay bridge fix by globalsnake · · Score: 1

      Well the fix is only for tension. If you look at the pic the crack is in the bottom of the eye bar. meaning the center of the center of the eye bar tried to move in the direction of the crack (compresion force) but cracked the eye bar since it is the portion that has the highest stress concentration. Most of these eyebars are supposed to be more for tension but in any structure you have tension and compression depending on the load. I do have an eit meaning am board certified to work under a PE. Since this bridge is old we can not assume anything but look at the facts. If the crack is caused by compression why fix it with tension no matter how good you weld the fix, if the welds experience stress this thing is going to come flying of. You have to weld in a matter so that the weld experience compression not tension regardless of what ever fix you come up with. You can also put small sensors on the members of the bridge so you can see the movement of the members, the crack can stem from movement that the bridge experienced on an earthquake regardless the cause what ever the fix do not weld in a mater that the welds see tension or else the fix will come of.

    5. Re:Bay bridge fix by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      If you look at the pic the crack is in the bottom of the eye bar. meaning the center of the center of the eye bar tried to move in the direction of the crack (compresion force) but cracked the eye bar since it is the portion that has the highest stress concentration.

      This is where I disagree with you. I think the crack is consistent with a stress fracture with the bar in tension. Google for "eyebar stress fracture" and you'll find all sorts of links to the Silver Bridge like this one, and it was clearly a failure under tensile loads.

      I'm also an engineer, though of the mechanical variety. I took that EIT test years ago, but haven't worked under a PE for enough time so haven't gone that route. I did work for a corrosion laboratory as a co-op back in college, though. I never tested an eyebar, but did test metal to tensile failure quite often - usually to look for hydrogen embrittlement.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  26. who gives a crap? by Gothmolly · · Score: 0, Troll

    "inconveniencing 250,000 people" - who cares, other than those people? How is this news, or even news for nerds?

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
  27. Welders are a scapegoat by SethJohnson · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As a hobbyist welder, and someone who has worked with welders in an industrial setting, I strongly doubt that the welding is the culprit. "Faulty welding" doesn't happen on something of the scale of a bridge. If it's one welder working, maybe. But this bridge repair would have had dozens of welders working. No one person's welding could have broken a bridge. Sure, they were under a time crunch, but that doesn't result in shoddy welds. It means more welders are put on task. Those guys are trained and certified and their work is defined by specs that they follow and then is inspected by city or state engineers. If the welding is the problem, it means the original spec was faulty.

    Seth

    1. Re:Welders are a scapegoat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I heard the welds failed because the imported steel was of inferior quality and could not hold the welds.

    2. Re:Welders are a scapegoat by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It wasn't the whole bridge that failed, it was a little support brace that was added to fix an earlier crack in the bridge. It wasn't a huge piece and very well could have been the work of a single worker.

      --
      Qxe4
    3. Re:Welders are a scapegoat by wizardforce · · Score: 1

      welds, even properly done welds, tend to be significantly weaker and more brittle than a typical solid piece of unwelded material. The subsequent temporary fixes that they tried failed before they were designed to which suggests that they may not have built in enough redundancy on the structure as they should have. It could just be a case where they over-estimated the strength of these welds and decided to cut a few corners on the design its self.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    4. Re:Welders are a scapegoat by Snowblindeye · · Score: 5, Informative

      I strongly doubt that the welding is the culprit. "Faulty welding" doesn't happen on something of the scale of a bridge.

      You're right on. If the author of the article would have watched any of the Caltrans news conferences, they would have answered some of his theories.

      The weld that he claims failed was clearly described as only being tacked, not structurally welded. That weld wasn't supposed to hold the structure together, the tie rods were, which failed. One of the improvements they are making now is to replace the tacking with a structural weld, so that even if something broke, these pieces won't come apart. The other improvements center around reducing vibration, especially in the tie rods

      Who wrote that article anyway? Some guy on the internet who looks at some pictures of the repair and thinks he knows what a bunch of engineers working on the problem didn't know?

    5. Re:Welders are a scapegoat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I've seen the steal break many a time before the welds do.. Depending on what you're welding, what you're welding with, most welds are far stronger than the material they are welding together...

    6. Re:Welders are a scapegoat by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      My understanding is the welding isn't being blamed, but I'll be the first to admin I've not bothered to read more than this article about ... however ...

      In the perfect world, more welders would always be added to speed up the process. But we do not live in a perfect world. You may live in a dream world, but thats not the one we live in.

      I see, on a regular basis, 'trained and certified professionals' take shortcuts and break the rules. I know state road inspectors that will pass things that really are questionable in order to get a road open. I see the resulting road failures myself.

      You can pretend that, as a welder, these guys are somehow immune to human nature, but that juts makes you nieve and disconnected from reality. Welders are people. People, ALL PEOPLE, are not immune from outside pressure.

      Your friends may be good guys, that doesn't mean all welders are like your friends. Hell, as a hobbyist welder I'm assuming you don't work on bridges so you aren't even qualified to talk about what goes on welding bridges.

      You are lashing out to defend what you perceive as your team, your boss, your cohorts. But you are no more informed on the issue than I am really. CNN doesn't count as informative when we're talking technical details of something like this, especially when interpreted by someone who starts off their message by 'I'm a hobbyist'.

      I'm a hobbyist pilot too, but I'm fully freaking aware that I am not qualified to fly a large passenger jet into the hudson or even really comment on 'what went wrong' in the engines after the bird strike. I've been around pilots for a lot of my life, including ones that fly large aircraft. Still does not qualify me to do so, I have no delusions of such things.

      Welding your sons go-kart together doesn't compare to building a bridge. Get some perspective and soda.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    7. Re:Welders are a scapegoat by belthize · · Score: 1

          Properly done welds meet the requirements. If the requirement is that the resulting joint be stronger than the original material that's generally possible, particularly with steel.

      There are only two kinds of welded joints that are weaker than the parent material:
      1) Joints whose spec called for them to be weaker
      2) Improperly welded joints.

    8. Re:Welders are a scapegoat by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Well, you're probably both right.

      I suspect that 10kg of welt is probably weaker than 10kg of intact steel. However, when weld are used most likely a lot more metal is put down in the weld than the materials being bonded.

      It is like saying "which is stronger - crazy glue or a steel girder." Well, the steel girder is probably stronger, but if you compare a 1" diameter girder to a blob of crazy glue two feet thick, then the crazy glue might just win out.

      As others indicated, welds in serious projects tend to get a lot of scrutiny and quality control, so this sort of thing shouldn't happen if they were properly specified. I wouldn't be surprised if welds on a structure like this would be spot-checked with x-rays.

    9. Re:Welders are a scapegoat by hey! · · Score: 1

      It might better be described as a faulty design which asked too much of the weld, then faulty welding.

      The weld in question was on a prefabricated part that broke apart in the field. The pictures clearly show that. So what you say goes double. It's very unlikely that the weld was performed incorrectly.

      My guess is that the behavior of the part hadn't been characterized well enough before the design was settled on. I'm guessing the part and weld were probably plenty strong, so long as the part didn't move.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    10. Re:Welders are a scapegoat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who wrote that article anyway? Some guy on the internet who looks at some pictures of the repair and thinks he knows what a bunch of engineers working on the problem didn't know?

      HAHAHAHA, I couldn't stop laughing at this statement. It wouldn't be so funny if it wasn't true. It hits the nail on the head for *ANY* knowledge based industry.

    11. Re:Welders are a scapegoat by abhi_beckert · · Score: 1

      Normal metal will flex under load, then spring back into place afterwards. Welded metal will not flex, instead it holds rigidly in place and will crack. When metal flexes it "cushions" the strain of the wind gust/cars/etc, massively increasing it's strength.

      Welded metal is *always* inferior to non-welded metal, and it's critical to avoid placing load on a weld joint. It has nothing to do with how many kg of metal there is.

    12. Re:Welders are a scapegoat by cryptor3 · · Score: 1

      Who wrote that article anyway? Some guy on the internet who looks at some pictures of the repair and thinks he knows what a bunch of engineers working on the problem didn't know?

      Reading the article, it sounded more like sports commentary. He's looking at the evidence available to him and attempting to give his thoughts on what he thinks happened. It's not that he thinks he's smarter than the engineers, it's that he's interested in this incident, and he's using available public knowledge and his engineering interest to explain what he thinks about the event. Sorta like Bill Nye? It seems pretty obvious to me, given the way that he defines basic terms, that he's trying take a technical issue and explain it to a nontechnical audience.

      I've got no basis for knowing if he's right or wrong, but if you think you know better, why not send him your ideas? He does seem to be reading mail.

    13. Re:Welders are a scapegoat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a patent attorney -- imagine the pain of reading the completely nonsensical comments on the subject that appear here on a regular basis. What's even funnier is that *all* U.S. patent attorneys have an engineering or science background, so we're going to generally be at least as well educated on the technology side as the people criticizing our work.

    14. Re:Welders are a scapegoat by kimvette · · Score: 1

      Welds are usually stronger than the structure being held together. If they are IMPROPERLY done that isn't the case, but that rings true for everything.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    15. Re:Welders are a scapegoat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read TFA, and the author clearly isn't a structural engineer. I used to do this stuff, before I went into software.

      1) Strain gauges. Damn straight I'd want them. You get Data from those.
      2) Tack welds -- If they really were tack welds, then I'm not suprised they failed. Tack welds might fail out of spite on a 2" plate due to cooling strains. No one with any sort of bridge certification would use a tack weld on a member that size anywhere near a cyclic load.
      3) We know it's a cyclic load because there was a fatigue crack on the original.
      4) Those aren't cables. Those are bars. Big Freaking Strong Ass Bars. Bars are threaded, cables have three wedge anchorages. I'm going to guess in the 200K# range.

      My guess? I think that the engineers assumed things would be straight. That anchorage is built for very straight compression. Something shifted enough that there was some rotation, and the tack weld failed in spite. I'd say that something was the overall shape of the muti-eyebar member. Once you've got the weld failed, then you're compressing plates end on with less support, and bad things happen.

      (guess, 10 years out of bridge engineering, but I've designed some retrofitting of post-tensioning, so I have at least done something like this).

    16. Re:Welders are a scapegoat by SethJohnson · · Score: 1
      Bitztream,

      You come across well-reasoned and rational, and I fully respect you. Please understand that my original post was brief to get to the heart of my criticism of the article blaming faulty welding. I didn't feel like going into a lot of detail about my qualifications to defend the welders, but I can assure you that I'm not some armchair yahoo trying to talk about something I have no experience with. I used to work as a welder's helper in refineries. We used to do turnarounds where deadlines were intense. Three shifts were common to keep the work going round the clock. In my current construction work, I frequently weld, but I'm not certified and am self-taught. Nonetheless, all of my work is inspected by professional inspectors, so I can empathize with those working to fix that bridge.

      I see, on a regular basis, 'trained and certified professionals' take shortcuts and break the rules. I know state road inspectors that will pass things that really are questionable in order to get a road open. I see the resulting road failures myself.

      I don't mean to belittle your background or observations, but I have to say that typical road work and anything that supports humans or hangs over human heads is worlds different when it comes to liability. Remember those concrete panels that fell from the ceiling of that Boston tunnel? Criminal charges were filed that could have led to people going to prison over the negligence that led to people being killed in that tunnel collapse. Basic road work has significantly less risk of fatalities due to road failure. If subgrade isn't properly compacted, you'll see some potholes, but nobody is going to jail.

      From my experience working on projects with intense time pressures and wildly demanding engineering where shit could blow up and hundreds of people could die, I am confident that this bridge project has had all kinds of scrutiny on the quality of the welds during the repair process.

      Seth

  28. What happened indeed by hardihoot · · Score: 5, Informative
    Perhaps if the state of California hadn't diverted transportation funds and had actually used the money to maintain its infrastructure (similar to New Orleans not using its allocated money to maintain the levee system) this probably would not have happened.

    Raids of Public Transportation Funds

    Ruling on a case started in 2007 by the California Transit Association, the California Appeals Court found that the gimmicks used to reroute public transit funding to other programs were not consistent with voters' intent for the funds to be spent on public transportation

    nearly $2.5 billion was diverted away from transportation programs

    --
    A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver --Proverbs 25:11
    1. Re:What happened indeed by drdrgivemethenews · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile, if bridges broke even 1/1000th as often as even the most stable OSes, we wouldn't have any.

      Methinks software engineers live in the most microsopically thin of glass houses.

    2. Re:What happened indeed by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      What needs to be done is people need to stop depending on oil, and bike to work. Bike to work by living closer to where one works.

      It is a crying shame. No it's damned near criminal in this day and age people have to go hungry, or live on the streets. The 'cagers' need to be a little more sympathetic to the poor and hungry.

    3. Re:What happened indeed by snaz555 · · Score: 1

      I don't understand the point you're trying to make. The Bay Bridge isn't funded by public transportation funds. Or are you claiming the bridge is funded _by_ raids on PTA funding under some vague notion that say because buses drive on it it's public transportation? But if so, wouldn't that be _good_ for the bridge - so how would that be the root cause of the eyebar crack?

      Second, what gives you the idea that it's not properly funded - if that's in fact what you're claiming (your other confusing statement seems to contradict this)? Or not properly maintained? Isn't finding and promptly fixing a cracked eyebar an indicator of active maintenance? Sure the temporary patch they applied (that span is coming down in a few years, anyway) was inadequate, but that's an engineering error and not a sign of lack of maintenance? In fact, isn't the mere act of completely replacing the span a sign of maintenance?

      You're just not making much sense.

    4. Re:What happened indeed by Agripa · · Score: 1

      What needs to be done is people need to stop depending on oil, and bike to work. Bike to work by living closer to where one works.

      This is difficult to do in a state like California where zoning is extensively used to divide business and housing for purposes of rent seeking. There are very few areas where travel by bicycle is remotely safe.

    5. Re:What happened indeed by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      What needs to be done is people need to stop depending on oil, and bike to work.

      You either have the endurance of Lance Armstrong, or you've never lived in the Bay area. It's pretty liberal (in the same way that Rush Limbaugh is pretty conservative), and some people make a commendable go of commuting by bike... but the topography of the place isn't really amenable to it.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    6. Re:What happened indeed by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      don't be lazy.

    7. Re:What happened indeed by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      read it all. MOVE CLOSER to where you work.

    8. Re:What happened indeed by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I did that when I was single. I rented an apartment building within walking distance of my job, and I had that apartment until I got married. Then my wife got a job about half an hour away, so we had to move.

      After a year, we moved to New York City, and I telecommuted while she worked across the street. It was a good gig, but only feasible because the apartment was subsidized.

      So we moved again after the subsidy ran out, and now we picked a place that evenly split our two jobs. We both have to drive about 20 minutes. She could probably bike, but the neighborhood is too bad for her - especially the odd hours she works. Me? Forget it. The roads barely were built wide enough for cars - biking would be suicidal. There's public transit that gets me within biking distance, but perversely they will not let me bring my bike during rush hour.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  29. MY insight, as an engineer by mrchaotica · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The real problem is that we should recognize that bridges, and especially landmark bridges, stay standing indefinitely and should therefore quit designing the damn things with puny 50-year design lives!

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    1. Re:MY insight, as an engineer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, if that isn't flamebait...

      For starters, would you happen to know of any structural materials that can tolerate corrosion for that period? Unless there is some magical engineering ceramic available, or gold plating every steel component isn't economical, we're going to have to rebuild these things when they start rusting themselves into pieces. There are things that are just impossible to engineer.

    2. Re:MY insight, as an engineer by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      In this case, it's not really the design lifetime that's a problem--- the bridge, under normal conditions, would continue functioning fine for decades. The problem is that we've gotten less tolerant of things like sections collapsing during earthquakes, and retrofitting the bridge to modern earthquake standards was projected to cost more (incl. the higher maintenance costs continuing indefinitely) than just replacing it with a newer design.

    3. Re:MY insight, as an engineer by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          If I remember correctly, the life expectancy of a concrete structure is 50 years. Some of the old NASA launch structures are deteriorating to the point of collapse, even though they were built to be extremely strong.

          Concrete meteorites. Metal rusts. Wood rots. Plastic? Nah, not that great for a bridge. :) 50 years is a decent judgement for projected growth too. Look at any city. How many can you find that have small or minimal growth between 1959 to 2009? In 50 years, it can be expected that a bridge or highway will be outdated and need to be replaced or upgraded. Unfortunately, infrastructure budgets don't necessarily line up with growth even though government is suppose to make it work.

          Power, water, phone, and cable don't usually suffer the same problems, because they are funded by the people using them. Unfortunately, roads cannot be paid for in the same way. The most overused and wrong statement that I've heard and hate is "Driving is a privilege, not a right". Nope, the state taxes the users (paying for drivers license and registration), AND the use (fuel taxes). They already had the RIGHT to drive. The state designated it a privilege so they could tax and control it.

         

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    4. Re:MY insight, as an engineer by babyrat · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, I don't quite understand how it is a right to drive. Could you explain?

      How do you propose we pay for the cost of road construction and maintenance?

    5. Re:MY insight, as an engineer by Tomfrh · · Score: 2, Informative

      For starters, would you happen to know of any structural materials that can tolerate corrosion for that period?

      Masonry - Many such bridges are hundreds of years old. Some are even thousands of years old!

      Reinforced Concrete - Again, 100+ year old RC bridges are common.

      Prestressed concrete - Not quite as old as some RC bridges, but again, 100+ year old examples are common.

      Steel - Our Sydney Harbour bridge is 70+ years old. No it's not magical gold plated or ceramic, it's plain old steel with a sufficently robust anti-corrosive covering. It will be around for at least another hundred years.

      I design structures, and I generally design them for 50 year design life. I don't like it, but it's the economic reality. Make no mistake about it, it's an economic contraint, not a physical contraint. If you don't provide a design solution that shifts costs onto future generations then the customer will find an alternate vendor who does.

    6. Re:MY insight, as an engineer by danielsfca2 · · Score: 1

      Masonry? I bet a brick bridge works well in London or whatever, but in one of our earthquakes that whole thing would be in the bay. ;)

    7. Re:MY insight, as an engineer by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      Roads are generally paid for through fuel taxes. You have to buy fuel to drive a motor vehicle.

          The other fees don't really cost much. For my car, it's $60/yr for the registration, and $48 every 6 years for my license $8/yr).. If I were an average driver, I would travel 15,000 miles per year, and assume my vehicle averages 19mpg. Our gas tax is 51.6/gallon.

          Yearly costs
          Registration: $60
          Drivers License: $8
          Fuel tax: $407.36

          Total yearly tax: $475.36

          My state shows that in 2006, there were 15,888,511 licensed drivers. Assuming 25% drive normally, (others are in school, retired, or don't work, etc) that puts 3,972,128 drivers on the road. This is skewed slightly, as out of state drivers come down (and spend money on fuel), and we have a lot of tourism. My numbers will be low.

          DL Tax: $ 31,777,024
          Reg Tax: $ 238,372,680
          Fuel Tax:$1,618,086,062

          It's not to see where the real money is. We're paying for our "right" by paying for fuel. The rest of their crap is just crap.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    8. Re:MY insight, as an engineer by BitZtream · · Score: 1
      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    9. Re:MY insight, as an engineer by brettper · · Score: 1

      I'm fairly sure that 'Our Sydney Harbour bridge' isn't in London, and neither is the above poster

    10. Re:MY insight, as an engineer by xaxa · · Score: 1

      According to Corus (used to be British Steel) "In the UK, the 'design life' of a new bridge is usually taken to be 120 years" (PDF).

      Of course, it's not California (so no quakes, but cold and damp can't help) but designing for only 50 years seems very short-sighted.

    11. Re:MY insight, as an engineer by Tomfrh · · Score: 1

      UK/Europe use whole-life concepts to determine bridge design life. So yes, their design life is longer than what US bridges are designed for.

      I believe US bridge are currently designed for 75 years, which is still way too short.

    12. Re:MY insight, as an engineer by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      I have some Ancient Roman Cement I would like to sell you. It has a proven life-span of over 1000 years.

  30. Meanwhile, in Segovia.... by BlackPignouf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Meanwhile, in Segovia (Spain), the Roman aqueduct is still up & running :
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aqueduct_of_Segovia

    Without mortar, with just granite blocks on top of each other, it is more than 2000 years old.
    I can't help but wonder when mankind began to suck at building anything that should last more than a few years....

    1. Re:Meanwhile, in Segovia.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Find me a Roman Bridge designed to handle the equivalent of 270,000 cars a day over a distance of several miles.

      Yeah, not quite the same task is it?

    2. Re:Meanwhile, in Segovia.... by WCguru42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not to take anything away from the impressive feat of engineering that the Roman aqueducts are but there is a big difference between carrying water and carrying 250,000 vehicles ranging between 1 and 50+ tons. Also, the Romans didn't really have to worry about costs seeing as the aqueducts were more than likely built by slave labor.

      --
      "Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
    3. Re:Meanwhile, in Segovia.... by QuoteMstr · · Score: 4, Informative

      You have no clue what you're taking about. Roman legionaries (who were paid) and paid laborers were used to build Roman infrastructure.

    4. Re:Meanwhile, in Segovia.... by phantomfive · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When we decided that building out of concrete and steal is cheaper and easier than chiseling out huge granite chunks of rock. We still could build things that last like that aqueduct, if we were willing to pay for it, we just find it is cheaper to use easier materials and then pay maintenance costs.

      The Segovia aqueduct needs maintenance too, unfortunately.

      --
      Qxe4
    5. Re:Meanwhile, in Segovia.... by realityimpaired · · Score: 2, Informative

      Roman Aqueducts were made of stone. The bridges in San Francisco were made of steel.

      Stone erodes. This takes a long time. The erosion can be seen on the original stones in the aqueduct you mentionned. It is happening, slowly but surely, and eventually, if not properly maintained, the aqueduct will collapse. (parts of it have already collapsed, and been repaired... it's in the Wiki you linked, even.)

      Steel corrodes. Unlike erosion, corrosion happens relatively quickly. Again, with proper maintenance, it can be mitigated, but it doesn't take long at all for it to become a significant issue. Like erosion, corrosion happens mostly on the surfaces, but water and other catalysts for erosion have a way of getting into cracks and crevasses, and eroding smaller things like bolts and rivets, which can't really be seen without taking the bridge apart.

      When you can show me a way to build a mile-long suspension bridge out of stone, I'll be listening.

    6. Re:Meanwhile, in Segovia.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Though the aqueduct at Segovia is very impressive, it wouldn't last long in earthquake-infested California.

    7. Re:Meanwhile, in Segovia.... by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile, in Segovia (Spain), the Roman aqueduct is still up & running : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aqueduct_of_Segovia

      Without mortar, with just granite blocks on top of each other, it is more than 2000 years old. I can't help but wonder when mankind began to suck at building anything that should last more than a few years....

      You have something of a point, sort of, but in addition to the problems pointed out by the other responses, you forgot to scroll down in that Wikipedia article and notice that the Aqueduct of Segovia has been reconstructed multiple times. Also note that we think of it as special because it's still there, whereas most other aqueducts collapsed 100-1600 years ago.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    8. Re:Meanwhile, in Segovia.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I can't help but wonder when mankind began to suck at building anything that should last more than a few years....

      Simple answer: it began when man realized that, by building something intended to last only a few years, he could guarantee himself (or his children/other successors) job security when that thing needed to be replaced.

      As a typical example, the Fort Steuben Bridge in Ohio. Built in 1928, last rehabilitated in 1972. Now considered (by publically-available inspection reports) to be "structurally deficient" and have a "poor" superstructure condition rating, it has thus has been scheduled for demolition by OhioDOT. The nearby Veterans Memorial Bridge was built in 1990 and yet, at approximately one-fourth the age of the Fort Steuben Bridge (or one-half the age of the newest repairs to that bridge), it has already attained the same "structurally deficient" and "poor" superstructure condition ratings as the older structure.

      (As an aside, in much the same way that lawmakers can justify nearly anything by putting a "national security" or "think of the children!" slant on it, state DOTs can do the same by calling their projects the "Veterans [Blank]". A quick check on Wikipedia shows at least 20 bridges named "Veterans Bridge" or "Veterans Memorial Bridge". But hey, who cares if you're squandering money on something unlikely to last 25 years without needing serious repairs... it's not *your* money, after all, and those taxpayers are loaded!)

    9. Re:Meanwhile, in Segovia.... by argent · · Score: 1

      It would have cost too much to do it with slaves. They're not cheap.

    10. Re:Meanwhile, in Segovia.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One might, instead, argue that the aqueduct was just a tad overengineered...

    11. Re:Meanwhile, in Segovia.... by smoker2 · · Score: 1

      I don't think all 250,000 vehicles are on the bridge at once. Considering a cubic metre of water weighs a tonne, any aqueduct with a water channel 1 metre wide, 1 metre deep and longer than 100 metres is carrying at least 100 tonnes at any moment, constantly. And your last comment is derisable, considering a dead slave is worth nothing so at the least they must be fed.

    12. Re:Meanwhile, in Segovia.... by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      Yes, but a smoothly flowing continuous stream of water puts considerably less structural stress on a bridge than 250,000 separate cars entering and leaving a bridge.

    13. Re:Meanwhile, in Segovia.... by photonic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Note that there is a large selection bias in the example you cite. The Romans were great engineers, but I am pretty sure they also built a lot of shitty bridges and aqueducts. It is a sort of natural selection, the ones that are still standing today happen to be the good ones.

      --
      karma police: arrest this man, he talks in maths; he buzzes like a fridge, he's like a detuned radio. [radiohead]
    14. Re:Meanwhile, in Segovia.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note that there is a large selection bias in the example you cite. The Romans were great engineers, but I am pretty sure they also built a lot of shitty bridges and aqueducts.

      Note that you are completely fucked up.

      You accuse someone of a selection bias, then support your accusation with "I am pretty sure they also built a lot of shitty bridges and aqueducts."

      WTF kind of argument is that shit? As a logical fallacy, it might be called "The Proof From Blatant Assertion".

      You're as ignorant as those dumbasses who say things like, "I'm certain there are probably ...."

      Look, jerk -- either certain or probably -- pick one and ONLY one.

    15. Re:Meanwhile, in Segovia.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, Italy has access to some awesome stone quarries. The San Francisco Bay Area doesn't. The Bay Area can import stones from Italy (and perhaps other parts of the United States), but it's actually an incredible expensive thing to do and it wouldn't make that much sense considering all the earthquakes we have.

    16. Re:Meanwhile, in Segovia.... by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Note that there is a large selection bias in the example you cite. The Romans were great engineers, but I am pretty sure they also built a lot of shitty bridges and aqueducts. It is a sort of natural selection, the ones that are still standing today happen to be the good ones.

      The nature of the construction they used, unreinforced masonry in compression, is one of the few construction methods that scales up in length, area, and volume reliably. Such structures never fail in compression because the crush strength of stone is so much higher than the forces involved in any economical structure.

    17. Re:Meanwhile, in Segovia.... by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      So you think that 2000 years of 'the universal solvent' running over it doesn't compare to some cars which are actually designed (to a small extent, its not like they drive tanks over it regularly) to be nice too it running over it for a few decades? The difference is, some things as shown in history were built to last, regardless of price. Modern bridges are not built under this concept. They are built to last a specific period of time as absolutely cheap as possible. This isn't really a bad thing, building a bridge to last a thousand years is rather silly in California, in 1000 years its doubtful the state will look anything like it does now. Plenty of bridges were built to last 50 years and by the time that 50 years comes along, they are barely used. It would have been a waste to design them to last a 1000 years, hell it may have cost not only more money to construct, but more money to deconstruct.

      Then, there are those bridges that need to last longer, handle more load, and deal with things that weren't expected at design time. Until we can predict the future, its all just a guess.

      I'm impressed these bridges last as long as they do as well, but I'm never surprised at a failure. The Minnesota failure didn't surprise me, as disturbing as it was. I'm more amazed by how few of these failures occur considering how many people just do the bare minimum they can get by with, from the construction workers, to contractors, to inspectors, to politicians. Not saying we shouldn't work harder to prevent failures, just that with all the variables involved, I'm impressed we do as well as we do. Our arrogance is even more amazing, the fact that we as a population are surprised, blown away in some cases. Far too many people think we control the world around us. There are a lot of really ignorant people in the world.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    18. Re:Meanwhile, in Segovia.... by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Dude, what the hell are you doing?! Logic and common sense have no place on slashdot.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    19. Re:Meanwhile, in Segovia.... by MightyYar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Great, they built a big stone bridge... now pass a container ship under it.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    20. Re:Meanwhile, in Segovia.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are aware that these two are totally different types of bridges, aren't you? You couldn't have built a Roman type aqueduct crossing the SF bay, that was only possible using the latest engineering at that time. Just imagine the drag that the tides would put on a bridge with as many supports as a Roman one. It would have collapsed decades ago if could have been build by some miracle.

      Also don't forget that the Roman constructions we still see today are only a small part of those they originally built. How many of them collapsed due to shoddy engineering nobody really knows.

    21. Re:Meanwhile, in Segovia.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "the ones that are still standing today happen to be the good ones."

      And not just good ones, but well maintained and even partially rebuilt ("restored") ones.

    22. Re:Meanwhile, in Segovia.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meanwhile, in Segovia (Spain), the Roman aqueduct is still up & running :
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aqueduct_of_Segovia

      Without mortar, with just granite blocks on top of each other, it is more than 2000 years old.
      I can't help but wonder when mankind began to suck at building anything that should last more than a few years....

      In 2000 years time, there will probably be a few buildings from our era still standing (anyone want to suggest likely candidates?) which people will look at and say "see how good those 1990's engineers were, this stuff is still standing.

      Meanwhile, all the 'normal' buildings will have fallen down or been replaced with something better, same as most roman buildings were.

    23. Re:Meanwhile, in Segovia.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And good luck with a foundation for all that stone: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_%E2%80%93_Oakland_Bay_Bridge#Construction

      And don't forget that mud liquifaction during earthquakes MIGHT damage your hop-hop-hop-hop aqueduct-style causeway.

      (adds 'civil engineering' to my list of subjects that average slashdotters know fuckall about).

    24. Re:Meanwhile, in Segovia.... by mr_stinky_britches · · Score: 1

      To the best of my understanding, Greece, and later on, Rome, both loved having slaved perform the less desirable work and labor. Can you back up your claims?

      --
      Censorship is obscene. Patriotism is bigotry. Faith is a vice. Slashdot 2.0 sucks.
    25. Re:Meanwhile, in Segovia.... by duffbeer703 · · Score: 1

      Familiarize yourself with Roman history.

      Depending on the era that you were talking about, slaves were used on a variety of tasks. Some of the best teachers in Rome were Greek slaves, for instance. In most circumstances, public construction was funded personally by Roman Generals and other rich folk, and they would use their employees (ie. the legionnaires) to perform the construction tasks.

      Construction was useful, as it kept the soldiers busy and occupied. Occupied soldiers don't try to overthrow their patrons.

      --
      Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
    26. Re:Meanwhile, in Segovia.... by mr_stinky_britches · · Score: 1

      thanks for following up.

      --
      Censorship is obscene. Patriotism is bigotry. Faith is a vice. Slashdot 2.0 sucks.
  31. RIAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Send the RIAA in to fix it. I mean, they have the money... right? They could actually do something constructive with their time and finances.

    HAR HAR!

  32. Don't blame the three caltrans employees by nick_davison · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It took me a while to figure out but then I realized: CALTRANS only actually employes three guys.

    Driving the 15 in San Diego, I wondered why there were all these construction sites with absolutely no one working. Eventually I pieced it together... CALTRANS only employs three guys and one of those has to hold the sign.

    Sure, they could just do one tiny little roadwork at a time. But that'd completely give away the hundreds of millions CALTRANS budget is being spent on three construction workers with the rest going to hookers and blow. Instead, they dump cones everywhere, dig holes everywhere, then quickly move on to the next site. Sure, you'll never actually see a CALTRANS guy working but it sure as hell looks like they must have a lot of people doing the work if they can dig up that much crap and have roadworks every couple of hundred yards.

    So, when judging the bridge collapse, try not to blame the three overworked guys. They're doing the best they can. Their job was to put up some cones, slap on some duct tape in the two minutes they had assigned, then get on to making somewhere else look busy. If you want to blame someone, figure out who spends the other 99.9% on those hookers and that blow. Imagine how much could be achieved if his habit went to pay for actual workers instead.

    1. Re:Don't blame the three caltrans employees by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Informative

      Instead, they dump cones everywhere, dig holes everywhere, then quickly move on to the next site. Sure, you'll never actually see a CALTRANS guy working but it sure as hell looks like they must have a lot of people doing the work if they can dig up that much crap and have roadworks every couple of hundred yards.

      Most highway work gets done at night. Late at night.
      If you can figure it out, I have no doubt CA's dot.ca.gov website will show you where and when they're actively doing construction.

      I drive around during the day and see cones.
      I drive around at night and I see construction crews.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. Re:Don't blame the three caltrans employees by sponga · · Score: 1

      Financially, working at night time is the cheapest and least burden on traffic.

    3. Re:Don't blame the three caltrans employees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they had wrapped the whole repair with duct tape the rods would not have vibrated and so would not have failed.

  33. Closed for DAYS? Lucky California. by sajuuk · · Score: 4, Informative

    Consider yourself lucky Californians. Us dwellers of Northern New York have a much bigger problem than you have if we want to get to Vermont. The NY DoT let the Crown Point Bridge, one of only two bridges across Lake Champlain fall into utter disrepair and it is now closed indefinitely. The shortest 'detour' to go across the lake and into Vermont adds around 100 miles to the trip, just to get to the crossing.

  34. Re:Made in China by Alex+Zepeda · · Score: 2, Informative

    The failed part was fabricated in Arizona.

    --
    The revolution will be mocked
  35. Re:Made in China by MBCook · · Score: 1
    Haven't you heard? That's part of China now.

    It's how the state balanced their budget.

    --
    Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
  36. What engineering is really about. by Animats · · Score: 4, Interesting

    No, Slashdot is mostly made up of computer janitors.

    I do get that feeling now and then.

    Many years ago, I went to a serious engineering school. There, the final exam in a course in structural engineering was this:

    At the final exam, each student had to design a link to attach two pins some distance apart. There were obstacles between the pins and the link had to go around then. The design was to be for a specified grade of aluminum and had to support a specified load. Students knew in advance what the exam would be, except for where the obstacles would be. For the exam, you sat at a drafting table, and turned in a drawing.

    The link you designed was then machined out of aluminum by a machinist. It was put in a testing machine and placed under the specified load. If the link broke, you failed the course.

    If the link didn't break, it was weighed. Lower weights yielded higher grades for the course.

    This is how good structural engineers are trained. (I'm not one. I was in EE/CS, and we had a different make-or-break exam.)

    1. Re:What engineering is really about. by QuoteMstr · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I do get that feeling now and then.

      As do I, but the occasional insightful posts make the whole exercise worthwhile.

      What school has that exam, by the way?

    2. Re:What engineering is really about. by bertok · · Score: 1

      I love exams like that, where there is no simple 'right or wrong' answer, but it's a competition against the rest of the class.

      At the University of New South Wales, I had a similar experience in my first year of studying Computer Science. We had this great professor who was a bit more inventive than usual with exams and projects.

      We started the first year studying a pure functional language called Haskell. A mere 4 weeks into the semester, just when we had figured out what 'functional' meant, and some of us could write a recursive loop, we got our first project: write a program to do optical character recognition (OCR). My jaw hit the floor when I heard that. Our marks were decided largely by the recognition rate on a test set generated by a randomly sized characters picked from a huge set of fonts. Mind you, the problem was substantially simplified from a 'real' OCR program, but still, getting above 85% was hard. If your program could only recognize less than 50% of the test characters, you got that as your mark, which was the first step towards failing the course.

      The second project was even better: we were told to write an AI to play the card game Hearts. As a part of the project materials, we were given a "game server" that could could play a set of AIs against each other, so we could trial our AIs ourselves. The marking was evil: the professor ran our AIs randomly against each other for a large number of games, and ranked them by the number of wins. The AI that won the most games received 100%, and the lowest received under 50%.

      I heard about other projects that he did for other years, I think one group had to write an AI to play a game similar to monopoly, again with 4 AIs per game.

    3. Re:What engineering is really about. by DerekLyons · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The link you designed was then machined out of aluminum by a machinist. It was put in a testing machine and placed under the specified load. If the link broke, you failed the course.

      Took a school like that in the Navy, six weeks on the mechanics of a disk drive. (The size of a footlocker, with hydraulic, mechanical, electromagnetic, and optical components. It held an amazing 10meg (not shabby for a 1964 era drive) and was built like a friggin' tank.) For the final exam you walked in and the whole damn thing was dismantled and spread out on 3-4 tables...
       
      You had two days to put it back together and perform all the alignments - then it was plugged into it's electronics and the 'self test' button was pushed. If it passed, you did. If it didn't, you didn't - and got to repeat the entire school.
       
      Don't even ask about the school on the drive electronics. Nearly a quarter of a century later I still have nightmares about that school.

    4. Re:What engineering is really about. by Polarism · · Score: 1

      I had a similar experience in the Navy too. For my certification in job I did from 2002-2004, my equipment was all randomized, every single setting and option was made to be something just ridiculous from normal, things were unplugged, shut off, and scrambled. I had to get everything back to 100% perfect functionality in less than 2 hours. Failure to achieve 100% was failure, kthxbye.

      --
      All your base are belong to Google.
  37. Difference in materials by lymond01 · · Score: 1

    I heard the problem was the weld between old and new steel. Temperature change caused the materials to contract or expand and, being slightly different, they changed at different rates, breaking the weld.

  38. I don't understand why people drive into SF anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The city is so nice and uncongested today. I don't own a car, so admittedly I am very biased, but I would be quite content just to leave the bridge closed. Plus it puts the focus on public transit, where a compact city like SF should be focused. For example, BART (the subway) is running 24 hour service this weekend. As strange as it may sound, despite being an urban environment we don't have 24 hour subway service normally!!!

  39. Windy, and wiggly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember -- this bridge _used_ to be anchored into Yerba Buean Island (where the road goes through a tunnel).

    That connection was broken and a large chunk of the old bridge moved out of the way, so the tower for the replacement bridge's suspension span could be built right in line with the tunnel opening.

    Meanwhile a big dogleg replacement was floated in and stuck between the island and the remainder of the old bridge to carry traffic.

    They found the 'eyebar' crack while doing that, a new crack since the previous inspection a year ago.
    The 'eyebars' are relatively thin flat pieces, that must be to take tension; they wouldn't do much for twist or compression forces. So they put the clamps on the good part and long rods in tension paralleling the weakened piece.

    Worked ok a while. But the whole thing is bound to have more movement in unexpected ways than before. I wonder if they have strain gauges built into it, or laser distance meters keeping track of movement, or something.

    On the same evening that repair failed, before that event, I was on a bus headed east about 5:15pm and just as we got onto the bridge from the SF side I noticed above us, in the left most lane, water pouring out of a crack in a seam in one of the big pipes that supplies, I assume, firefighting water to the bridge. It was really obvious, every vehicle that drove under it got wet and there was water on the roadway.

    Haven't read about that, but it was real obvious and must have been fixed sometime during the closure.

  40. Wind usually not a problem. by Animats · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's surprising that they had trouble there. That's a big, stiff truss span, with lots of cross-bracing. Those usually don't have serious wind problems. (The Tay Bridge disaster was, of course, one involving a truss bridge. But it was badly designed and very badly fabricated.) The worst case for wind is a long, narrow, thin span. The Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapsed through that kind of failure, and the Golden Gate Bridge was vulnerable to it. In 1951, during high winds, the Golden Gate Bridge deflected enough that one side of the roadbed was 11 feet higher than the other. Stiffening trusses were added under the span. (These are big trusses, each over 20' high, but the bridge is so huge that few people noticed the retrofit.)

    In the 1989 quake, the Bay Bridge had an upper deck section break at the joint between the high truss span and the lower spans. That was an impedance mismatch - the two sections oscillated in different ways, and the stress at the transition point was enough to break bolts. When the Bay Bridge was designed in the 1930s, those problems weren't well understood, and could not yet be simulated.

    The problem seems to be that the quick fix for the crack was underdesigned. That was recognized within days, and a second fix was under construction.

    The damaged eyebar could be replaced, but that requires fabricating a new eyebar and some specialized tooling to take off the load from that whole eyebar chain during repair. This span will be torn down in a few years, when the new span is finished, so that may not be worth it.

  41. Minneapolis all over again: it was the snow! by SebastianPY · · Score: 1
    Wondering why no-one took into account the snow factor: in my professional opinion, the sub-zero temperatures of the bay area are what caused the problem in the first place.

    This is exactly what happened with the Minneapolis bridge!

    1. Re:Minneapolis all over again: it was the snow! by chill · · Score: 1

      ...the sub-zero temperatures of the bay area are what caused the problem in the first place.

      The what where? I'm not sure the phrase "sub-zero temperatures" and "bay area", meaning SF Bay, go together.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    2. Re:Minneapolis all over again: it was the snow! by ishobo · · Score: 1

      Wondering why no-one took into account the snow factor...

      Because not all of us failed geography. The SF Bay area has a Mediterranean climate. Outside of the mountains, it does not snow during the winter. It has never been sub-zero in the area, including the mountain peaks.

      professional opinion

      Pray tell, what profession would this be?

      --
      Slashdot - The great and glorious cluster fuck of Internet wisdom.
    3. Re:Minneapolis all over again: it was the snow! by Kredal · · Score: 1

      Professional troll, is my guess.

      --
      Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
  42. Re:Closed for DAYS? Lucky California. by ucblockhead · · Score: 1

    There is a huge difference between a bridge mostly used for long distance travel and a bridge 250,000 people use to get to their jobs every morning.

    --
    The cake is a pie
  43. Re:What happened to the Bay Bridge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So your saying he was protecting them for the last 30 years? His protection must suck.

  44. Imagine a beowulf cluster of bay bridges, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    &.c &c. &c.

    1. Re:Imagine a beowulf cluster of bay bridges, by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      It would certainly make commutes easier.

    2. Re:Imagine a beowulf cluster of bay bridges, by toppings · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia, bridge crosses you!

  45. Re:What Happened To the Bay Bridge? by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Funny

    Sir, I can make no claims as to the veracity nor contrewise of your premises.

    However, should they prove to be true then surely a far greater mystery is how it has stayed up so far.

    Verily thine,

          B. Franklin.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  46. bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a terrible idea. Anything that enables population explosion is bad for us ALL. Overpopulation is the cause of nearly every problem, directly or indirectly.

    And if we can just make fresh water, why worry about polluting ground water and surface water?

    Bad idea. Just because we CAN do something doesn't mean we SHOULD.

  47. What is a "San Francisco" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And who gives a fuck.

  48. The answer is too obvious. by symbolset · · Score: 1

    1. Move half of the jobs out of the city
    2. Move half of the people into the city
    3. Blow up the bridge

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  49. Not a good article by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 1

    I was hoping it wouldn't show here, after seeing it elsewhere.

    This article is all supposition, and poor supposition than that. It presumes the fix was under-strength ('band-aid they installed was not strong enough to handle the total load') when the problem was most definitely not that the fix wasn't strong enough, but that it didn't stand up to wear-and-tear due to the motion of the bridge.

    This is backed up by the failure info and the fact that CalTrans reports they saw the deleterious effects of wear in an inspection a week before the failure, but thought they had more time to fix it and so didn't repair it more quickly.

    On another note, does anything really think there will ever be a new eyebar on this bridge? Traffic is slated to begin to be moved off the bridge next year, do you put a permanent fix on a bridge you're already in the process of replacing?

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
    1. Re:Not a good article by colfer · · Score: 1

      I've read many news reports, but was still waiting for some close-up pictures and diagrams. So the article was helpful in that way.

    2. Re:Not a good article by ishobo · · Score: 1

      This article is all supposition, and poor supposition than that.

      Which means it is perfect for Slashdot.

      --
      Slashdot - The great and glorious cluster fuck of Internet wisdom.
  50. Re:What Happened To the Bay Bridge? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Oh, no mystery there. The Bay Bridge predates basket weaving degrees. ;^)

    Even in the '50's and '60's engineering took precedence over politics. Today, being "politically correct" takes precedence over everything, except maybe generating revenue.

    If at all interested in traffic engineering, consider speed limits. Real traffic engineers believed in the "85th percentile". In effect, when you open a new road, you post no speed limits - but you monitor how fast people go. After a period of time, you tally up those speeds, and settle on the 85th percentile. Faster drivers will almost all slow down to that speed limit, slower drivers tend to speed up closer to that speed limit, and everything flows smoothly. Today - speed limits are set well below that 85th percentile, intentionally. This way, when the cops are detailed to generate some revenue for the courts, they don't have to spend all day waiting for "x" number of speeders to come along.

    If you want something totally screwed up, give it to a committee. If you want it FUBAR'd, make it a committee of politicians.

    Anyway - the proper fix for that crack on the bridge would have been to shut traffic down, and REPLACE the damaged part. Slapping a band-aid on the problem was a political BS thing.

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  51. Re:Closed for DAYS? Lucky California. by colfer · · Score: 1

    Bad, but it is a two lane bridge carrying 3800 cars per day. Actually, that should make it easier to fix.

    The Bay Bridge is the Big Dig of the west. It is the largest public works project in California history, a ridiculous feat. Gov. Terminator tried to change it to a simple trestle, but the ensuing delay and furor only succeeded in adding to the cost.

  52. Re:Made in China by palegray.net · · Score: 1

    Well played, sir. Well played.

  53. The real problem. by writermike · · Score: 1

    The real problem is the bay. Get rid of the bay, you have no more bridge problem.

    That's the kind of mavericky thinking we need today and America.

    --
    If Nalgene water bottles are outlawed, only outlaws will have Nalgene water bottles.
  54. Re:Closed for DAYS? Lucky California. by sajuuk · · Score: 1

    You'd think it would be easier to fix. We just heard today that it won't be fixed until the spring at the earliest. I now consider the announcement that this was 'priority number one' for the NYS DoT to be funniest thing I've heard all week.

  55. Lets see here... by tengeta · · Score: 1

    This bridge has been a problem from its start, its been a consistent problem since Loma Prieta, and the repairs cost as much as building a new bridge. How about, I dunno, do the logical thing here since it might actually be a safe bridge if it isn't this one.

    --
    "They confiscated everything, even the stuff we didn't steal!"
  56. comedy by Haxx · · Score: 1

    Slashdot is a great engineering community?

    I thought this was the only Information Technology Comedy sight on the internet.

  57. Re:Made in China by tygt · · Score: 1

    Epic failure, nice try. Even people who'd like to yell about that won't believe it.

  58. Re:What happened to the Bay Bridge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well his protection obviously doesn't extend to preventing mental retardation...

  59. How many are really inconvenienced? by ZipK · · Score: 1

    ... hugely inconveniencing more than 250,000 people a day...

    That estimate is very low. First, the Bay Bridge typically hosts 270,000 vehicles per day. If we assume an average of 1.5 passengers per vehicle, we're still talking about 400,000 Bay Bridge passengers per day. Second, those diverting from the Bay Bridge are now overfilling BART trains and crowding on to other Bay Area bridges, indirectly inconveniencing many more people.

    1. Re:How many are really inconvenienced? by Jerry+Rivers · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that long term construction on the San Leandro section of highway 880 South, coupled with the increase in traffic diverted to the San Mateo bridge, has resulted in massive inconvenience for people who don't use the bay bridge on a daily basis.

      --
      The pursuit of absolute tolerance leads to the most rigorous and ludicrous intolerance. - REX MURPHY
  60. Re:What Happened To the Bay Bridge? by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

    It makes me wonder if things would have gone better if it had been built according to the Emperor's instructions.

    --
    sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  61. Bridge in Montreal by lucm · · Score: 1

    In 1990, the Mohawk people (native Americans) blocked the Mercier Bridge in Montreal to protest against the expansion of a golf course on an alleged sacred land. The blockade lasted for *the whole summer*.

    The Mercier Bridge is a major access point to the southwest of Montreal island, over 75000 cars are using this bridge daily. Of course all the people usually driving on this bridge got stuck in huge traffic jams, but this situation also created gridlocks on the other bridges and highways in the Montreal area. For months.

    At first the cops tried to remove the Mohawk, but they had weapons and killed one cop (caporal Marcel Lemay). So the cops pulled back and the army was brought in. This was a highly political situation; the army was not allowed to use force and merely stood guard.

    A crazy summer.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  62. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  63. Re:What Happened To the Bay Bridge? by Rakarra · · Score: 2, Funny

    I suspect that California educated engineers had a lot to do with the problem. A panel had to decide how to fix the problem. The panel was composed, by law, of one gay, one lesbian, one transvestite, one Mormon, one Moslem, one Black, one Hispanic - the list goes on and on.

    You REALLY don't know how things work in California.

    We got rid of the Mormon after the Prop 8 debacle.

  64. scotty... by Grog6 · · Score: 1

    "God, if I were Scotty, I'd have fragged Kirk."

    Yeah, some accidents are meant to be, lol.

    30 seconds? I'll show you 30 seconds...

    --
    Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
  65. Re:Closed for DAYS? Lucky California. by BitZtream · · Score: 1

    And the problem is the fact that 250k people commute over a bridge that spans that sort of distance, and then proceed to complain about pollution from traffic.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  66. Re:What Happened To the Bay Bridge? by calidoscope · · Score: 1

    And, among the engineers, the various engineering disciplines had representation, including the Doctors of Basketweaving from Berkeley.

    That's Underwater Basket Weaving - one of the majors presented in the Cal SOP (along with gems like Prevarication). And yes, I did get my engineering degrees from Bezerkeley.

    --
    A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
  67. Re:I don't understand why people drive into SF any by danielsfca2 · · Score: 1

    Why drive into SF?

    Because living there costs twice as much as a similarly-appointed apartment anywhere else in the galaxy.

    Combine that with the utter ghettoness of the whole city--even the new fancy million-dollar condo towers are surrounded by panhandlers and smash-and-grab thieves.

    Combine that with the fact that anyone who lives in the whole western half of the city takes 45+minutes of hilly, car-destroying, non-freeway driving to get to the eastern half (where all the jobs are)...whereas on a good traffic day, Oakland is only 20 minutes from work, and most of the peninsula is only 15 minutes away. All of which is freeway. Thank the hippies (the 50s freeway revolt) for that one.

    And finally, despite these things, companies still insist on putting jobs there. Lots of jobs.

    San Francisco: Thousands of jobs for the taking, but not one nice place to live for less than $5,000 a month.

  68. Re:What happened to the Bay Bridge? by countertrolling · · Score: 1

    Welcome, Reverend Falwell

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  69. Re:Closed for DAYS? Lucky California. by ucblockhead · · Score: 1

    Because of the geography, San Francisco has no smog, so you don't find drivers complaining about pollution.

    --
    The cake is a pie
  70. Re:What happened to the Bay Bridge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    his protection obviously doesn't extend to preventing mental retardation...

    Well duh.

    Have you seen the self-contradictory bullshit his followers have to believe in?

    Mental retardation's practically mandatory.

  71. Re:What happened to the Bay Bridge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, like the mental retardation behind the statement "Slashdot is a great engineering community". ROFL. Slashdot is MySpace for the vacuous and subintelligent portion of the teenage population that also happen to be a little nerdy. A place for kiddie nerd-wannabes who wouldn't have half the brains for engineering even if they were old enough. Slashdot: News for posers, stuff that trolls.

  72. way off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Alan Greenspan was a close personal friend of Rand's.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ayn_Rand_Collective

    p.s. Rand was wrong about almost everything.

    1. Re:way off by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Greenspan was appointed chairman of the Federal Reserve about 5 years after Rand was dead. I've known about their association since reading his essays published in her books.

      Him running the Federal Reserve always struck me as a very Dr. Robert Stadler kind of activity although to be fair his advice to congress was regularly ignored.

  73. Bulked up to protect the span? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    http://cryptome.quintessenz.org/mirror/eyeball/gwb-shields/gwb-shields.htm
    They could just be adding bridge blast shields to encase sections of the suspension bridge's cables
    Or they needed a few days access to set something up ....

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  74. You dipshit - the bridges are funded by tolls by ishobo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Perhaps if the state...

    Perhaps if you know what the fuck you were talking about. This is why it is pointless to listen to anobody on Slashhdot, 99% of the comments are bullshit.

    All the bay bridges, except the Golden Gate, are managed be the Bay Area Toll Authority and funded by tolls. Educate yourself.

    http://bata.mtc.ca.gov/

    --
    Slashdot - The great and glorious cluster fuck of Internet wisdom.
  75. What happened to the fucking bridge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really? Do you need to ask? Obviously, somebody somewhere was cutting corners to save their company money. Period. Why the fuck else would the bridge be fucked up? Companies don't have any incentive to do things the right way -- it's not in their best interest. Companies are only concerned about profit. Every time I see a story like this, or see an article asking a question like this, I cringe at the level of ignorance required to not see the reasons why shit like this happens in the first place. This article leads me to talk about the bigger picture.

    People, please wake the fuck up. This whole monetary system is epic fail. Almost all of you hate going to your job, spending 40 hours or more per week doing shit you hate just to put food on your plate, all the while trying to ignore that little voice in your head that tells you what you actually want to do (you know, like play music or invent something). And you probably have some dumb, nagging, bitch of a wife constantly asking you to do extra shit for her or the kids, driving you nuts every single time she opens her blabbering mouth. But, like the spineless pussy you are, you hang your head in shame and obey -- pretty much what you've been doing your whole fucking life. Hang your fucking head in shame and obey your master. Piece of shit. And, when you finally do get some time to yourself, you wonder where the fuck it all went wrong. Dumbass. It went wrong when you assholes decided to be ignorant of what went on in government, and now your corporate masters are running the show (don't believe me? follow the money trail). I mean, for fuck's sake, we've got the Federal Reserve now. THE FUCKING FEDERAL RESERVE. Good job, guys. Seriously, you old fucks wonder why young people hate you? That's why. Because, among everything else, you allowed this illegal, unnecessary institution to be erected here in America. Central bank for the loss.

    Now, here we are in a horrible recession, and all you dumb fucks can say is "stop spending so much!" Hello? The only way to get out is to spend at an astronomical rate. That's what we had to do the first time around and that's what we'll have to do every single time this happens. But hey, this system is pretty darn good when it works, right? Nah, we still have a billion people -- yes, one sixth of the human population -- who are STARVING, even though we have the technology and the means to produce enough food for everyone, forever, without harming our environment. Get a god damned clue, you arrogant, ignorant fucks. I say arrogant with this type of person in mind -- the idiot who thinks they're smart because they watch Fox news and talk with their co-workers about political issues as if they had spent eight to ten years of their life earning a doctorate in political science. Well, I got news for you buster -- you don't know shit.

    We don't need money. We're past that point. Hell, the shit we use isn't even real money. You can't redeem it for anything at the government -- all its good for is wiping your ass. We went from gold and silver coins, to paper money that was redeemable for gold, to this bullshit (which, by the way, the Federal Reserve lends out AT A DEBT... meaning there will literally never be enough money in circulation to be able to pay off that debt). Do you like the idea of being forever indebted to a handful of private bankers? Do you like being thought of as a wage slave, or do you like the thought that every time you punch the time clock, you enter a dictatorship? Of course you don't, but you've probably never thought of it that way. Or, you probably think of people who say such things as being conspiracy theorists or just plain loony. But, when you look at the facts and see that all I'm saying is true, you're the one who looks like the fucking loony.

    A better world is out there. Our technologies have enabled us to turn scarce resources into abundant ones, but "money" produces that scarcity, artificially, all over ag

    1. Re:What happened to the fucking bridge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound like a very compassionate person and that you walk the talk.

  76. Obligatory..... by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 1

    FOR SALE:

    One (1) Bridge.

    Used, in fair condition. Needs work, but a good "Fixer-Upper". Breathtaking views of the San Francisco/Bay Area. Located in close proximity to major cities, recreational areas, marinas, beaches, city hot-spots, and only a short drive from Giant's Stadium. Historical and famous.

    *****Now accepting bids*****

    Contact:

    Arnie Schwartzenegger
    State Capitol Building
    Sacramento, CA 95814
    Phone: 916-445-2841
    Fax: 916-558-3160
    das_governator@gov.ca.gov

    --
    Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
  77. the traffic the traffic.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Love visiting the bay area, but Im so glad I dont live there. 45 minutes to cross a bridge ugh.

  78. kick the wrench by tem123 · · Score: 1

    The threaded rod looked to be a very coarse thread , no washers - no lubrication, they used a 2-3foot wrench to tighten it - kicked it - from the caltrans pictures.
    Is that enough force to even take the slop out this setup?

  79. Re: the bridges are funded by tolls by hardihoot · · Score: 1
    Notice I prefixed my post with "perhaps". I did so to indicate that I cannot prove the failure was due to skimping on maintenance so money could be used elsewhere. It is quite possible this occurred, especially given what we've seen concerning New Orleans and recently, the bridge in Minnesota (or was it Wisconsin? --somehwere up there) and stating the fact (backed up by credible sources) that money was indeed diverted from transportation. This fact lends credence to my assertion which I freely admit could be false.

    You are correct the Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA) handles maintenance of the Bay bridges:

    BATA oversees the administration of toll collection and maintenance activities for the seven state-owned bridges in the San Francisco Bay Area about BATA

    However, funding for this maintenance comes in part from tolls collected, part from the state of California, and part from the federal government. These funds are overseen by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC):

    MTC devotes considerable energy to advocacy efforts in both Sacramento and Washington, D.C., to ensure an adequate flow of funding for the maintenance and expansion of the Bay Area's transportation network about MTC

    On page 24 of the MTC Annual Report 2008 , I see that BATA took in about $492 million dollars in toll operations revenue. BATA also received $126 million in grants from Caltran and other agencies.

    However, on the same financial statement I see $807 million was given to Caltrans and another $27 million given to the MTC. This proves my point that money flows in and out of both agencies. Caltrans, MTC, and BATA are intertwined.

    What I cannot prove from the financial statement is whether maintenance was neglected so money could be diverted elsewhere. It is possible that even with 100% funding for maintenance & inspections, no amount of inspection would have prevented the bridge failure. My point in posting what I did was to show that California is diverting funds from transportation which may be the cause of bridge failure.

    I live on the East Coast so my West Coast knowledge does not come from personal experience. I think from my research I've learned quite all I want to know concerning Bay Area bridges.

    --
    A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver --Proverbs 25:11
  80. Re:I don't understand why people drive into SF any by kchrist · · Score: 1

    You answered the wrong question. Your answer would be fine if the parent poster had asked, "Why not live in SF?", but his actual question was "Why not take public transit into the city rather than drive?"

    And I agree. I spent a few years living in Berkeley/Oakland and working in SF and I never drove into the city unless I was going to be out past midnight. And if BART ran 24 hours (the way it is now with the bridge closed), I wouldn't have driven then either. With BART across the bay and MUNI in the city, you really almost never need to have your own car in SF.

  81. Re:I don't understand why people drive into SF any by danielsfca2 · · Score: 1

    I live 15 minutes away from work by car and 45 minutes away by CalTrain. I calculated that if I took CalTrain I would save $3 a month, in exchange for sacrificing 20 hours of my time a month.

    And CalTrain is the only public trans that wouldn't require a transfer onto the accursed MUNI for me. BART, as you probably know, has a grand total of 6 stations in SF, four of which are on Market Street.

    I think the poster I replied to must work in the financial district. If your destination is right there in those 4 blocks or so where BART goes, and you're lucky enough to have BART nearby where you live... then I agree, it is great. Except it costs so damn much, but parking downtown is obviously even worse (more costly). If you happen to live right next to a Muni train line, well, as long as you don't mind getting robbed, or at minimum crammed literally like sardines with a bunch of rude, smelly people, then that's also more convenient than driving across SF.

    I bet plenty of people who work downtown take BART into the city.

    But I'd bet that the majority of Bay Bridge commuters work pretty far away from SF's pitiful subway network, and would have to take a train and one or more buses, requiring 1-2 hours to get to work, compared to the half hour or 45 minutes (or less!) to drive in.

    Furthermore, I think at least some of the "drivers" are former public-transit riders who originally wanted to "do the green thing" but just got fed up with how bad the public transportation is in the Bay Area.

  82. Your friend has money, but little financial sense. by Estanislao+Mart�nez · · Score: 1

    "Actually 40K is my bi-weekly income, but I wanted to get a loan because my investments are returning higher than the loan interest rate."

    That kind of thinking is one of the things that messed up the economy just recently. The assumption that future returns will be like recent returns--which when you get down to it, is equivalent to assuming that investments have no risk.

    Finance 101: you must assume higher risks to achieve higher returns. If your friend's investments were returning higher than the loan interest rate, that means that his investments are riskier than the loan would be at that rate. Or put in a different way: if the source for the repayment of the loan would be the income from investments that return more than the loan, then the bank would do better to invest the money in the same stuff your friend is doing.

  83. Who cares! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who the hell cares about the bay bridge. Caltrans sucks. Period. End of story. Move along, nothing to see here.

  84. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  85. "Bay Bridge Now Open" by Zotdogg · · Score: 1

    Looks like it's finally back up.

    511.org (Traffic)
    http://www.511.org/baybridge/default.asp

    Bay Bridge site:
    http://baybridgeinfo.org/

  86. Are there enough NorCal moderators? by BancBoy · · Score: 1

    To get this man/woman the Funny mod it deserves.

    --
    [UID-HeinzIntel]
  87. Re:What happened to the Bay Bridge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    20 years ago He gave them a little jolt that broke the bridge

  88. Re:I don't understand why people drive into SF any by bstender · · Score: 1

    I live 15 minutes away from work by car and 45 minutes away by CalTrain. I calculated that if I took CalTrain I would save $3 a month, in exchange for sacrificing 20 hours of my time a month.

    Calculating car-cost at .50/mile, (slightly lower than actual, but easier to figure), i suspect your savings on train are greater. and how you gain so much time on the train is interesting, must not be peak times, but the quality of the time spent in either scenario, riding along doing what-have-you vs. piloting an automobile, should compare well also. ymmv

    --
    look sig is kool
  89. Engineering Philosophy by dark+grep · · Score: 1

    The commonly held view of the group of friends I used to ride with many years ago was that the American engineering philosophy was, whenever a crack appeared, modify the design with more angle iron and more weld. It was how we explained the development of the Harley Davidson motorcycle.