Tech Company To Build Science Ghost Town In New Mexico

The hills have eyes. by gandhi_2 · 2011-09-06 21:12 · Score: 1

Just don't take any shortcuts on your road trip in that area.

--
THL phish sticks

Re:The hills have eyes. by Lord+Lode · 2011-09-06 21:22 · Score: 3, Funny

If they're going to do nuclear testing there, you could always hide in a fridge and be safe.
Re:The hills have eyes. by Stormtrooper42 · 2011-09-06 21:44 · Score: 1

Just make sure it's a lead-lined one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0upNuDNRSk
Re:The hills have eyes. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-06 22:54 · Score: 0

persons unknown
Re:The hills have eyes. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-07 00:28 · Score: 1

They could have just taken over a large part of Detroit and saved a lot of work... but those areas probably are not that safe either. :-)
Re:The hills have eyes. by Darth+Snowshoe · 2011-09-07 01:51 · Score: 1

This. Lots of places anywhere in the US now could be had for much cheaper than building a new town from scratch. Because, whatever technologies they are vetting there, if they're not applicable to current housing, current communities, current ways of life, no one, or very few people at least, are going to consent to having their current homes leveled to make way for it, whatever the it is.
Re:The hills have eyes. by Lodragandraoidh · 2011-09-07 05:37 · Score: 1

...no one, or very few people at least, are going to consent to having their current homes leveled to make way for it, whatever the it is.
Two words for you: eminent domain.

--

Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
Re:The hills have eyes. by Phoghat · 2011-09-07 23:39 · Score: 1

Hey Indiana

--
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.

Name by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-06 21:15 · Score: 0

They should call it "Eureka".

They should call it... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-06 21:16 · Score: 0

...Eureka.

Re:They should call it... by SomePgmr · 2011-09-06 21:36 · Score: 1

That was my first thought. I'm still waiting for someone to build a city like Eureka with... well... slightly lower requirements for residence. ;)
Re:They should call it... by vlm · 2011-09-06 23:16 · Score: 1

That was my first thought. I'm still waiting for someone to build a city like Eureka with... well... slightly lower requirements for residence. ;)
Huntsville Alabama? Last time I visited, in the early 90s, around 80% of the population was pure binary, either military uniform or doctorate degree. What do you get if you take a sleepy farm town in 1945 and drop 50 times its population of german V-2 rocket scientists, and friends, on top of it? Nobody could talk at the bar about what they did at work, but you knew whatever it was, it was cool.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Re:They should call it... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-06 23:45 · Score: 0

Alabama?
Can you even get to this place if you're black? Without being beat up by law enforcement, that is?
Re:They should call it... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-07 01:21 · Score: 0

I hear there are great opportunities in cotton picking..

Here's one I prepared earlier by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-06 21:16 · Score: 0

Sounds like the Isle of Wight in winter :)

Re:Here's one I prepared earlier by ciderbrew · 2011-09-06 21:25 · Score: 1

All I can think of is Ghost Town by The Specials.

too much fighting on the dance floor...

I see two things happening by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-06 21:22 · Score: 5, Interesting

1) Lots of movies will be shot there.

2) Lots of squatters will move in and create a real life issue of the morality of building a vacant city that can house 35,000 people and not letting homeless people stay there.

~Kactus

Re:I see two things happening by Co0Ps · 2011-09-06 22:23 · Score: 2

I doubt you would want to move out in the middle of the desert with no open stores and no institutions if you are homeless. Since the city only consists of buildings you would have a lot of logistics problems. Do they even have running water? Even if they did the piping there would be no point in having it on except if they did some kind of related water tests.
Re:I see two things happening by martin-boundary · 2011-09-06 22:26 · Score: 1

You forgot
3) All the fridges will get stolen.
Re:I see two things happening by ByteSlicer · 2011-09-06 23:43 · Score: 1

All the fridges will get stolen.
But... where can Indy hide for the nuclear blast then??
Re:I see two things happening by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-07 00:57 · Score: 0

Live in the middle of the desert? They would be better off doing that, honestly.. we should send them to Africa so they can actually get help from americans. Cause us americans love sending money to people who live in deserts, where there is no food.
Re:I see two things happening by PopeRatzo · 2011-09-07 01:03 · Score: 2

I doubt you would want to move out in the middle of the desert with no open stores and no institutions if you are homeless.

You wouldn't want to move under a bridge either, but that's what some homeless people do.
I agree with the original poster though. You want to build a test town? Well at least have it help some people besides your R&D department.
Anyway, I bet they'll have water because there will be a bunch of R&D wonks working there.
Unfortunately, I think we're wasting time here. Something tells me this story is bogus. Nobody's going to build a "test town" in the middle of the desert. They may lay out some make-believe infrastructure but they're not going to build little bungalows and streets and white picket fences like we're all imagining from some post-cold war hollywood film.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:I see two things happening by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-07 01:26 · Score: 0

3) Lots of military excercises will be conducted here.
Re:I see two things happening by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-07 01:37 · Score: 1

You still need to be able to get food and water even if you're homeless. That's why there is a homeless problem in the cities and not in the forests. Actually I always found that a bit odd, if I was homeless I'd live in the wilderness - less chance of being hassled by the cops, abundant food so long as you know where to look, but nevertheless, in reality the homeless congregate where there are people. It's not just shelter they're looking for or they'd go live in caves.
Re:I see two things happening by aliquis · 2011-09-07 01:41 · Score: 1

35.000 Slashdotters move out of the cellar to get free electricity and faster network connections.
I would do it. The city is rather empty? Even better!
Re:I see two things happening by afidel · 2011-09-07 01:45 · Score: 1

Why not? If you were ever going to do it now would be the time, skilled labor is cheap and materials are generally as cheap as they are going to be in the foreseeable future.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Re:I see two things happening by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-07 01:55 · Score: 0

Morality? Since we started using oil,we have the energy equivalent of 2500 people working for us, why do we still need 40 hour work weeks and 95%+ employment? Who are we working for, and for what, and why?
Re:I see two things happening by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-07 02:07 · Score: 0

Squatters? Making a living in a deserted city in the middle of the desert off what?
Re:I see two things happening by Nadaka · 2011-09-07 02:45 · Score: 1

We are working for the owner class of course, so they can grow richer, and we can grow poorer. The leaches at the top of society are siphoning of the boom of wealth that we have created through our labor. During this recession, profits are higher than ever and the wealthy grow richer while the middle class are financially gutted.
Re:I see two things happening by ConceptJunkie · 2011-09-07 02:47 · Score: 1

It wouldn't be empty with 35,000 Slashdotters moving in and it would be impossible to think with the heavy memeon flux. I mean every sentence would have to start with "In Soviet Russia..." and end with ", you insensitive clod." People wouldn't have discussions, they would just restate what each other said, changing a word or two and appending "FTFY." And they'd all be broke because no one has figured out the "???" step yet.

--
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Re:I see two things happening by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-07 02:54 · Score: 0

I was thinking TV's (will get stolen)
Re:I see two things happening by Dogtanian · 2011-09-07 03:56 · Score: 1

You forgot 3) All the fridges will get stolen.
Also (4) In this Ghost Town, all the clubs in this will be closed down (due to too much fighting on the dance floor).

--
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Re:I see two things happening by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-07 04:59 · Score: 0

Living in the wilderness sounds like a good plan until reality hits. 19th century mountain men lived in the woods, and they still died. These guys were at peak mental and physical condition. They also traded with the "Indians". People who become homeless today are the less fit, and the only people who live in the woods today are owners and pot growers. The owners will call the cops on you. The pot growers will just shoot you. There are no friendly "Indians". There are rabbit and deer; but shooting in the park is illegal, and did I mention you're either schizophrenic or a flabby middle manager with no experience int that kind of thing?
Re:I see two things happening by Lodragandraoidh · 2011-09-07 05:50 · Score: 1

In the past, at least, they realised where the cow was that gave the cash... Now it seems like they are doing all they can to liquidate it.
Based upon the theological leanings of most of the power elite, I expect this last ditch effort to destroy everything is only a symptom of apocalypse mania.
It should be interesting, post 2012 when we are all still here and having to function, how they're going to deal with that. You can only last inside your bomb-proof shelter so long before the zombie mobs break in to eat your eyeballs.

--

Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
Re:I see two things happening by Grishnakh · 2011-09-07 06:27 · Score: 1

Maybe you should watch "Call of the Wild", a documentary about a guy named Chris McCandless who tried this in Alaska back in the 90s and died. Don't bother with the Sean Penn movie about the same subject, as its conclusion was wrong; he didn't die of poisoning at all, he died of malnutrition.
99% of the general population is simply not able to live in wild areas. There isn't enough food there (it certainly isn't "abundant"), and what food there is, most people aren't very good at catching. Do you really think your average homeless bum, who's homeless because he has mental problems, is going to be able to catch a deer and slaughter it? Or even a rabbit?
There's a reason humans turned to agriculture 10,000 years ago.
Re:I see two things happening by Darinbob · 2011-09-07 07:50 · Score: 1

But people with their human failings will screw up the experiments! How can we accurately test theories about traffic control if some human shows up and does something unpredictable?
Re:I see two things happening by ArsonSmith · 2011-09-07 08:26 · Score: 1

In soviet Russia:
1) Move to Science Ghost Town
2) ???
3) You insensitive clod
FTFY.

--
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Re:I see two things happening by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-07 09:34 · Score: 0

I don't see any morality issue, unless you are building a fully-staffed facility to house 35,000 mentally ill, drug and alcohol dependent people incapable of functioning in a productive capacity, and then keeping it empty.
Re:I see two things happening by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-07 10:37 · Score: 0

3) Lots of military excercises will be conducted here.
They are moving them out of Afghanistan, Iraq, South Korea, Israel, Libya, Japan, ... ?
Re:I see two things happening by treeves · 2011-09-07 11:20 · Score: 1

You do realize, I hope, that most of Africa, is *not* desert, right? Oh, who am I kidding?

--
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
Re:I see two things happening by PopeRatzo · 2011-09-07 11:33 · Score: 1

If you were ever going to do it now would be the time, skilled labor is cheap and materials are generally as cheap as they are going to be in the foreseeable future.
If the corporations have their way, and there's no reason to believe they won't, I think skilled labor is going to get a lot cheaper.
Of course, there's always materials. Something tells me that if they do end up building a bunch of empty houses, the quality of construction will be at least as good if not better than what they're putting up in your average Houston suburb.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:I see two things happening by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-08 02:00 · Score: 0

Seem like a perfect location for a Ghost in the Shell or AppleSeed Movie

Hmm by rasmusneckelmann · 2011-09-06 21:23 · Score: 2

Sounds very inefficient and expensive to me.

Re:Hmm by ciderbrew · 2011-09-06 21:27 · Score: 1

expect government backing.
I see no reason why they could not outfit 35,000 peoples homes with kit. Real world data has to be worth more.
Re:Hmm by SomePgmr · 2011-09-06 21:39 · Score: 3, Insightful

Because burning down 35,000 real homes when your molten salt solar energy storage system fails, or having your water recycling system backflow bad water through the tap is a bigger problem when you fill them with families of 4?

Just a guess. :)
Re:Hmm by ciderbrew · 2011-09-06 22:25 · Score: 1

I'd mod you as +1 funny for a good answer. In reply to that down the /. pub. You'd have to start with all the system fails of every current energy production method and list just how many coal / gas/ hydro electric deaths disasters happen and give a body count. Molten salt is a plus as it doesn't give you Nth conditions.
I'm not sure how to fit a water recycling system backflow into a car analogy just yet; but I'm sure we can give it a go.
Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-06 22:32 · Score: 0

What if they're trying to test what happens if 35,000 homes are all fitted with item x in a specific configuration? Or perhaps new designs for housing? Etc, etc.
Sometimes it's better to build things from the ground up instead of adapting something already there.
Re:Hmm by vlm · 2011-09-06 23:20 · Score: 2

Because burning down 35,000 real homes when your molten salt solar energy storage system fails, or having your water recycling system backflow bad water through the tap is a bigger problem when you fill them with families of 4?
Even "normal failure" needs to be covered up. If it takes 50 revisions to get your SDHW panels not to leak, the last thing you want is 50 families whining on facebook and twitter about how revisions 1 thru 49 of your new panel design leaked water all over their priceless scrapbooks.
Also payment negotiations with a zillion individuals would be a huge PITA.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Re:Hmm by Inconexo · 2011-09-06 23:45 · Score: 2

Well, it's a salvation for construction companies. Now, they can keep building houses without the need of selling them.
Re:Hmm by SeeSp0tRun · 2011-09-07 00:58 · Score: 1

I'm not sure how to fit a water recycling system backflow into a car analogy just yet; but I'm sure we can give it a go.
Perhaps:
It would be akin to running your exhaust through your air vents?
Just a shot in the dark to help you out =D

--
Something witty.
Re:Hmm by delinear · 2011-09-07 02:40 · Score: 1

I wouldn't be surprised at all if this was part of the logic behind it - keep builders in work on the tax payer's dollar then try to recoup the money by hiring out the town to big business for testing.
Re:Hmm by Rich0 · 2011-09-07 08:42 · Score: 1

Yup. What I can't see is the value in actually building an entire city.
If you want to test self-driving cars, you just need roads and maybe curbs. Maybe wooden walls to obstruct vision.
If you want to test electrical distribution you just need tons of dummy loads and some distance.
I just don't see why you actually need to build something like this - it seems like massive overkill on costs.
Re:Hmm by Archwyrm · 2011-09-07 09:27 · Score: 1

TFA gives little indication about what kind of buildings and infrastructure they are actually going to build, but you aren't going to build actual houses for 35K people with a mere $200 million. So, I think some of the things that you listed are likely to be actually built. Perhaps with a few "real" houses interspersed.

--
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power. -- Mussolini

Its about time by arcite · 2011-09-06 21:24 · Score: 4, Funny

Those Crashtest dummies have been demanding a homeland for compensation for decades of abuse and maltreatment in the workplace.

Re:Its about time by SeeSp0tRun · 2011-09-07 01:16 · Score: 1

That sounds all too familiar...
1. Let's abuse group A very badly
2. We make it up to them by giving them land
3. We give them terrible land in the desert
4. They open casinos and make some money
5. We tax said casinos...
6. Profit

--
Something witty.
Re:Its about time by Dogtanian · 2011-09-07 04:01 · Score: 1

Those Crashtest dummies have been demanding a homeland for compensation for decades of abuse and maltreatment in the workplace.
When asked to respond to today's news, the crash test dummies' spokesman said "Mmm mmm mmm mmm."

--
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Re:Its about time by ColdWetDog · 2011-09-07 04:11 · Score: 1

This sounds even more familiar:
Slashdotter makes marginally funny comment.
Another Slashdotter misses the point entirely and tries to rebut the post by trying vainly to force some semblance of logic and intellect in it.
Then another Slashdotter comments on the above.
Meanwhile, an obscure component manufacturer somewhere in the Pacific Rim announces a major order for some new bleeding-edge piece of technology that could conceivably become part of some expensive, digital-lifestyle-enhancing nerd toy.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:Its about time by Pope · 2011-09-07 06:00 · Score: 1

Many miles away something crawls along the shore of a dark, Scottish loch.

--
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.

I WANT TO LIVE THERE by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-06 21:26 · Score: 0

I'm sure that after a certain point they're going to have to actually put in real people to test out those factors they can't fully model.

I would love to live in this experimental town of the future.

Just the IDEA that I live in some town that's built to be x years into the future has me slobbering in pure unrelenting avarice. Yeah, there may be a lot of shitty stuff, but by the time they hit the human testing phase, this will be the advanced 20 square mile concentration of technologies that aren't purely based on industry in the USA.

LET ME IN.

Residents by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-06 21:28 · Score: 0

Also, why not let people live there? Just make them sign an NDA+contract saying that the traffic lights might not be 100% reliable or that the power grid could get intermittent cuts or whatever. The companies involved would get more realistic use-case scenarios, and I'm sure plently of people whould sign up just to get to use the awesome technology involved.

Re:Residents by Grishnakh · 2011-09-07 06:30 · Score: 1

Won't work. We already have laws requiring home buyers to be informed when they buy a house next to an airport, but they buy them anyway and then promptly complain about the noise, and demand that the airport be moved. People like this are constantly tying up the legal system.

training grounds for zombie outbreaks by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-06 21:28 · Score: 0

Finally the US are getting serious about planning and preparing for zombie outbreaks. Having ghost town ready for this purpose is clearly needed for training police, army and other first-responders for the event of a large zombie attack.

Re:training grounds for zombie outbreaks by ColdWetDog · 2011-09-07 04:13 · Score: 1

Finally the US are getting serious about planning and preparing for zombie outbreaks. Having ghost town ready for this purpose is clearly needed for training police, army and other first-responders for the event of a large zombie attack.
That's really not needed. We have plenty of WalMarts which could be used for practice.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!

Field of Dreams worst nightmare by ElitistWhiner · 2011-09-06 21:30 · Score: 1

Only a scientist could understand the need to test outside a sterile laboratory environment full scale with the hubris to mock Reality by charging for it and then certifying the inanity soliciting a self-serving kind of captive tourism to pay rent while caught in its nightmare

Re:Field of Dreams worst nightmare by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-06 21:45 · Score: 1, Funny

; : , .
these are friends. they will help.
Re:Field of Dreams worst nightmare by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-07 01:39 · Score: 0

I don't think that was a sentence.
Re:Field of Dreams worst nightmare by eugene+ts+wong · 2011-09-07 09:15 · Score: 1

T
That is a friend, too.

--
testing out my trending skills
Re:Field of Dreams worst nightmare by Archwyrm · 2011-09-07 09:32 · Score: 1

At least he plays nicely with (aka U+0020).

--
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power. -- Mussolini

Detroit by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-06 21:35 · Score: 0

They can just use Detroit.

Anyhoo, maybe it will provide a good place for homeless, squatters and drug dealers to hang out.

Why build a brand new ghost town by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · 2011-09-06 21:36 · Score: 4, Funny

They should just use Detroit: it's already built, it's realistic and it's a lot larger than a 35,000 inhabitant city.

--
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash

Re:Why build a brand new ghost town by Required+Snark · 2011-09-06 22:02 · Score: 1

There are a lot of existing city locations that could be used for this purpose. Two candidates are Las Vegas and Riverside county in Southern California. There are large tracts of existing houses that are empty that the banks would love to unload. The people who own houses here have all seen their value drop by large amounts. A government buyout would be great for them as well.
This article lists Riverside/San Bernadino a having the worst outlook for recovery of the housing market. http://www.businessinsider.com/thirteen-housing-markets-that-will-never-recover-2010-5#1-riverside-ca-housing-prices-are-down-52-and-unemployment-is-at-18-13
Housing prices are down 52% and unemployment is at 18%. Why build a bunch of new empty houses when some many new houses are sitting idle right now?

--
Why is Snark Required?
Re:Why build a brand new ghost town by Joey+Vegetables · 2011-09-06 23:08 · Score: 1

Cleveland also has vast tracts of uninhabited land where the steel mills and factories used to be. I don't know if it would be possible for anyone to live or work there now, due to all the hazardous waste dumping that occurred since they closed. I imagine that (to a lesser extent than Cleveland or Detroit) the same is true of many other Rust Belt cities. Cleanup would be possible, but difficult and expensive, and, for most purposes, it's more practical just to build in exurban areas half an hour away, some of which are also abandoned due to the collapse of the market for new homes, but don't have the pollution or crime issues of the central city.

--

Nonaggression works!
Re:Why build a brand new ghost town by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-06 23:48 · Score: 0

Housing prices are down 52% and unemployment is at 18%. Why build a bunch of new empty houses
...to give a bunch of unemployed construction workers a job? They obviously aren't going to get one building "real" houses anytime soon.
Re:Why build a brand new ghost town by XxtraLarGe · 2011-09-07 00:00 · Score: 1

They should just use Detroit: it's already built, it's realistic and it's a lot larger than a 35,000 inhabitant city.
I'm thinking things are going to be turning around for Detroit real soon. Sarif Industries just started there a few years back, they're going to be huge.

--
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Re:Why build a brand new ghost town by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2011-09-07 00:08 · Score: 1

Sarif Industries? Do they have a leg to stand on? [Warning: mods modding this off topic should look up and see the oooosh flying past]

--
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Re:Why build a brand new ghost town by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-07 01:22 · Score: 0

They should just use Detroit [time.com]:
It's creepy that the map in the time's article displays the cemetarys as being 100% occupied.
Re:Why build a brand new ghost town by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-07 01:38 · Score: 0

They actually replaced the steel mill and factory locations with shopping plaza's to help further take money away from the city and move it elsewhere.
Re:Why build a brand new ghost town by Pharmboy · 2011-09-07 02:11 · Score: 1

It's creepy that the map in the time's article displays the cemetarys as being 100% occupied.
It means they are zombie-free. Every grave has a body. It's a good thing.

--
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Re:Why build a brand new ghost town by LWATCDR · 2011-09-07 02:12 · Score: 1

I was thinking why not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordova,_Alabama#Present_Day_Cordova
Or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greensburg,_Kansas
Or any number of other places. I love the idea of building a town from the ground up. I just hope that put in a trolly system. Up till the 1950s every major city in the US had a trolly system. Maybe get Google involved as well.
What we are talking about is what EPCOT was supposed to be except Walt was going to have people live there.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Re:Why build a brand new ghost town by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-07 02:23 · Score: 0

Does Pegasus Holding Systems care about giving people jobs? If you read TFA their idea seems to be this city would be like a supercomputer. That is, research organizations would pay for time to test out urban technologies. So why build in the desert a new city? Control. Go ahead and buy the houses in Vegas, but if the economy in Vegas heats back up you'll lose control of your area. Even if you keep all the houses you can't block all the roads.
An easy example of what this will be good for, and I'm surprised I haven't seen this, is Google testing a fleet of driverless cars. Can't do that in New York. Can't do it in Detroit. Can't do it in Vegas. You need a controlled environment that has all the trappings of a city but none of the human drivers to mess up your experiment.
Or how about testing an in road wireless power transmitter? Something like the PowerMat but for electric cars. It would eliminate the need for huge batteries, plus it might be able to keep the road clear of ice from its heat output. I know, radiation, think of the children, but we have plenty of objects with inherent dangers like that. We just need to work them out. Hey, I know, let's build a city to test these things where no one can get hurt but we can do it full scale!
Re:Why build a brand new ghost town by Thud457 · 2011-09-07 02:43 · Score: 1

hmmmm, houses that can't be sold sitting empty, yet you still have homeless people.

Looks like your economic system isn't that effective.

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Re:Why build a brand new ghost town by networkBoy · 2011-09-07 02:57 · Score: 1

I think you are bang on. Control.
Though to test driverless cars you need cars with drivers at some point for the driverless cars to avoid.
Also, Google already runs autopilot cars in cities. They are not driverless, but the driver is only there in case the autopilot fails, otherwise he's just another passenger.
-nB

--
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
Re:Why build a brand new ghost town by Joey+Vegetables · 2011-09-07 03:15 · Score: 1

You're probably referring to Steelyard Commons . . . actually it has been a great thing for city and inner-suburb residents who'd otherwise have to drive way out to North Olmsted or Mentor to be able to buy anything, or may be constrained by lack of public transportation from getting to retail outlets at all. But a similar project in Garfield Heights, built over a landfill, has had significant problems due to methane leakage. There is always significant risk when building on, over or near brownfields, and for every project that is successful there are several that are not.

--

Nonaggression works!
Re:Why build a brand new ghost town by Joey+Vegetables · 2011-09-07 03:33 · Score: 1

They would be turning around right now if the culture of Detroit and its immediate environs were not so hostile to business. The falling dollar and lower labor costs due to the recession should be making American manufacturing competitive again. But not many investors are brave enough to invest in a place where workers don't want to work, unions don't want to let them, city government is famously corrupt, regulations at all levels stifle anything resembling innovation, a communist thug like Michael Moore is a local hero, and crime of all kinds abounds. Manufacturing will come back to the South first, to less hostile parts of the Midwest next, and to places like Cleveland and Detroit only when the people who live in and run those places decide they want to welcome business instead of bashing it.

--

Nonaggression works!
Re:Why build a brand new ghost town by ColdWetDog · 2011-09-07 04:16 · Score: 1

Looks like your economic system isn't that effective.
Yes it is. It's very effective. For some people. Just not most people.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:Why build a brand new ghost town by ThorGod · 2011-09-07 04:29 · Score: 1

After having lived in both NM and Las Vegas, I can contrast and compare the two fully. Where NM is sparse and full of local communities; the surrounding Las Vegas area is jam packed with people. (Problematic if you truly want a ghost town.) The real crux, how ever, is that NM has much more progressive policies. NM has tons of science all around the state. Los Alamos was built to design the nuclear bomb. It also has a nuclear waste repository (WIPP), a world-class tech/engineering college (NMT), Sandia National Lab, and so on. Las Vegas/Nevada just got done kicking a nuclear waste repository out of town (YMP). For that matter, UNLV saw its endowment reduced from $500 million to slightly more than $100 million*. UNLV's had to cut entire academic departments! It's obvious to me. If you want to do science or something kin to a government project, then NM is the place for you. Las Vegas has many policies that are pro-business, but it's political atmosphere generally rejects anything scientifically progressive or just 'governmental'. Las Vegas would prefer to see another large investment bank open up shop than have, heaven forbid, any scientific, federal projects.
*IIRC

--
PS: I don't reply to ACs.
Re:Why build a brand new ghost town by ThorGod · 2011-09-07 04:31 · Score: 1

And before I'm flamed...Yes, I know this isn't a prospectus for a government program. But, it has the definite 'feel' of a government program. It simply wouldn't fly anywhere near Las Vegas.

--
PS: I don't reply to ACs.
Re:Why build a brand new ghost town by istartedi · 2011-09-07 05:09 · Score: 1

It's creepy that the map in the time's article displays the cemetarys as being 100% occupied
Well, somebody has to make sure the mayor wins re-election.

--
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Re:Why build a brand new ghost town by zippthorne · 2011-09-07 11:20 · Score: 1

Eh.. sounds like they'd be better off going sans Sarif...

--
Can you be Even More Awesome?!

No people? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-06 21:43 · Score: 0

Such a sad waste. Why not put up offers for say a few thousand homeless people to be bussed in there with the simple instruction that they should just live like decent human beings and not kill each other? They get free food and energy within reasonable limits for the duration of the project. Hopefully they can start a community.

Re:No people? by Arancaytar · 2011-09-06 23:04 · Score: 1

Creating decent living conditions for the poor is just plain un-American. :P
Re:No people? by Belial6 · 2011-09-07 04:20 · Score: 1

The biggest problem is getting them out when you need to. Eviction is an ugly messy business. Imagine trying to evict someone that needs to be evicted in a town where 100% of the residence were living there for free. You would likely end up with open revolt.

If they did put homeless in it, hiring a bunch of instructors (not necessarily "teachers") to do training in the town would make the whole exercise more useful by making it a giant on the job retraining program. Given your suggestion involves a lack of desire to earn a profit on the human residence, the loss in productivity, wouldn't be such a big deal. No doubt there are plenty of out of work, if not homeless people that are skilled in virtually every trade that a city needs to act as the instructors for those being retrained.

I don't think it would work having people at all, but by making it a "training program", you would mitigate some of the public outcry when it came time to evict people.

They suppress actual sustainable housing by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-06 21:54 · Score: 1

Ironically, sustainable housing developer Michael Reynolds has been fighting the state for decades to legalize experimental housing (where people actually lived). Nobody wanted it, because it turned out to be so good that people did not have to work anymore. They didn't slave 40+ hours a week just to give everything away to government and corporate parasites. His houses are all self-sufficient (even in terms of food and sewage), made from garbage/dirt and in areas that are considered uninhabitable and therefore extremely cheap.

Re:They suppress actual sustainable housing by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-06 23:03 · Score: 0

You can build any house anywhere you want (in residential zones, or outside of city limits to avoid zoning issues), but you have to meet certain standards that we as a society/government have set for safety-related issues. The scope of these standards was more-or-less set before anyone thought of renewable housing, and simply updated over the years, so it's quite unlikely the provisions were written simply to exclude these houses.
So without knowing more (thanks for providing a link...) I expect the reason his housing projects are blocked is because they do not conform to building codes, not because they threaten the establishment. I am a libertarian and oppose government building codes, but it's simply dishonest to portray a building-code issue as a man-keeping-us-down-for-profit issue. If that's not what's going on, maybe you should have posted a few links to solid information so I wouldn't jump to the obvious conclusions.
Re:They suppress actual sustainable housing by Cheerio+Boy · 2011-09-06 23:42 · Score: 1

You can build any house anywhere you want (in residential zones, or outside of city limits to avoid zoning issues), but you have to meet certain standards that we as a society/government have set for safety-related issues. The scope of these standards was more-or-less set before anyone thought of renewable housing, and simply updated over the years, so it's quite unlikely the provisions were written simply to exclude these houses.
So without knowing more (thanks for providing a link...) I expect the reason his housing projects are blocked is because they do not conform to building codes, not because they threaten the establishment. I am a libertarian and oppose government building codes, but it's simply dishonest to portray a building-code issue as a man-keeping-us-down-for-profit issue. If that's not what's going on, maybe you should have posted a few links to solid information so I wouldn't jump to the obvious conclusions.
He's talking about Earthships.

And yes it's building codes and permits that are often the problems.

However the houses built in this manner are stronger and safer than conventional housing AND they use up waste resources as well as being sustainable.

Furthermore you can really build them anywhere you can put in a well or rain catchment.

--

"Bah!" - Dogbert
Re:They suppress actual sustainable housing by bzipitidoo · 2011-09-06 23:51 · Score: 1

Links? Wikipedia and search engines are your friends. Reynolds has a Wikipedia entry.
Housing is one of the easiest things to criticize. It's full of incredibly wasteful methods and customs. Much of the work is done on site, rather than at a plant. They all just have to have fireplaces. I don't know about you, but if the fireplace was a $10000 optional item, I'd nix it in a heartbeat. What I find craziest are these people who will pony up $300000 or $500000, or more, and all they get is a larger version of the same old stuff. If you can afford that much, why wouldn't you put some of that money into practical things, like better insulation, double pane windows, a bit of solar water heating, etc.
Reynolds is the Earthship stuff. There's an Earthship housing development west of Taos, NM on hwy 64. They make houses out of old tires and bottles. It's interesting, and a little strange. I got a sense that the residents do not appreciate it. They view themselves as poor and hard done by, and act like they're stuck in these houses rather than proud of them. Didn't get much in the way of hard numbers about the building costs, maintenance, energy and water usage, so it's hard to judge.
In contrast, the Rocky Mountain Institute is one of the more scientific of the sustainable housing efforts.

--
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
Re:They suppress actual sustainable housing by Oxford_Comma_Lover · 2011-09-06 23:52 · Score: 1

You can build any house anywhere you want (in residential zones, or outside of city limits to avoid zoning issues), but you have to meet certain standards that we as a society/government have set for safety-related issues...
What? No--aren't building codes *rules*, not standards? There's a huge difference. If they were standards, then they would adopt with times and any method capable of supporting necessary loads would be fine. Rules are more like "You must use Douglas fir for a thirty-two foot span" or "the door must be framed in such and such a manner" or "joists must be placed every X feet" or "The walls must be made of fire-resistant sheetrock at least 3/8" thick." Standards would be more "The floor material must be capable of supporting a load of weight X at its midpoint" or "the building must be capable of withstanding any category 3 hurricane"

--
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
Re:They suppress actual sustainable housing by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-07 00:42 · Score: 0

Nobody wanted it, because it didn't conform to building regulations. No conspiracy. If Reynolds had been able to build those things within building regs it would have been another story.
Re:They suppress actual sustainable housing by drinkypoo · 2011-09-07 00:52 · Score: 1

What? No--aren't building codes *rules*, not standards? There's a huge difference. If they were standards, then they would adopt with times and any method capable of supporting necessary loads would be fine.
Some building codes are legal standards while others are just rules. You can tell the difference because the rules say "you must use this" while the standards say "you must use at least this". An example of a standard is the size of a footing for a house set on piers; IIRC in this county it must be a minimum of 16" square (I've dug 'em before, but it's been a time) and use a certain minimum amount of concrete, and you have to use so many of them per so many feet of wall and so on. An example of a rule is that wiring must be jacketed in PVC insulation. And then another example of a regulation is that you must have at least X number of outlets if you have Y feet of wall.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:They suppress actual sustainable housing by joebagodonuts · 2011-09-07 01:27 · Score: 1

I recall in the not too distant past an asking price of 1 million dollars for a new earthship outside of Taos. If you do it yourself, it IS considerably cheaper. But still: A tire house for a million bucks? Not quite "extremely cheap".
Ever filled a tire with dirt, and then packed it down? Many times? Then built walls out of them? Me neither, looks too damn hard :)

--
"Give a woman two glasses of wine and some pad thai, and they'll agree to just about anything." the Sports Guy
Re:They suppress actual sustainable housing by Overzeetop · 2011-09-07 02:20 · Score: 1

They have both kinds.
Prescriptive: If you build it with Douglas Fir you can span 32 feet maximum. (Well, there are actually whole tables)
Standard (aka performance based): Your residence must be able to support a 90mph wind, a 0.167g lateral seismic force, 40 pounds per square foot for live load, and under this load it cannot deflect more than the span length divided by 360.
I you use the Prescriptive method, you grab an $80-100 code book (or download it from the state for free), use their tables and methods, and you're done. By using those methods and materials you effectively comply with the performance standards. If you use the standard building code, you need to prove it - generally by hiring an professional engineer or registered architect to do the calculations and show you how to build it. Heck, you technically don't even need to comply with some of the provisions if you can prove they are not applicable. For example, if you're in a 90MPH wind zone but you have a special sheltered area that never gets that kind of wind, you can set up a monitoring station and have a professional take data for 5-10 years, compile it using standard formulas and statistical estimates to create a custom wind zone which you can then ask to have adopted by the local official or the national body. Same for new materials - you create the materials, run then through standard testing (and by standard, I mean custom, but with the national code body supervising or an engineer creating the test) and submit the new data for approval.
Now, the key here is that if you want to build a house for $10000 in spare parts, it's going to cost you $100,000 or more to engineer such a beast. If you're building 10,000 of them, then it's no big deal - but if each one is different. Well, the cost to prove that you meet the standard can be high. I once had a guy who wanted to build a garage out of surplus server racks. He had some old, undocumented lumber trusses he's bought/found, too. I told him it would probably cost more for me do properly design his garage (back then at $100/hr) than it would cost to go buy one, but that I would be happy to help him if he really wanted to do it.

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?

Prior examples by ZeroExistenZ · 2011-09-06 21:55 · Score: 1

Ghost down

I've read about plenty of them in a "chick or the egg" situation: commercants don't want to settle because there are no clients. Residents aren't drawn because there is no commerce running and there is nobody else.

Perfect setting for an apocalyptic scenario..

--
I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1

Isn't this what supercomputers are for? by RoverDaddy · 2011-09-06 22:13 · Score: 1

You know, for things like Simulations? Seems you could hopefully get many answers from the computer without the need for 20 sq. mi of "hardware", and then confirm the results with more limited real-world tests.

Observation 2: This sounds like a money-grab more than anything else.

Observation 3: China has ghost cities already. Perhaps we could use one of theirs.

--
RETURN without GOSUB in line 1050

Re:Isn't this what supercomputers are for? by backslashdot · 2011-09-06 22:25 · Score: 1

Boeing has supercomputers but even they wouldn't produce a kite without wind tunnel tests.
Re:Isn't this what supercomputers are for? by jovius · 2011-09-06 22:55 · Score: 1

Indeed. A new universe shall be build to simulate life that simulates life that simulates life that...
Re:Isn't this what supercomputers are for? by jmuzz · 2011-09-07 15:29 · Score: 1

We have a need for this sort of thing at my work, and we are infact involved in the same industries mentioned.
Traffic systems, solar .
Testing in pavement stuff is really difficult. You need a variety of real roads to test on, ever tried getting permission to install a prototype system into a public road?
Road closures to install and monitor, requirements to resurface to road when finished, road rules and insurance issues with driving a vehicle as part of a test, liability risks if your prototype injures or damages the public.
You need a closed facility with real world standard pavement (not 50 year old abandoned military base with grass growing out of it).
Its not about testing the traffic flows and stuff, its about testing how the devices stand up physically. Roads are complex, they are a slow moving liquid which deforms over time and makes a mess of anything you try to embed in it. Wires under the surface snap, enclosures crush or burst open, devices sink deeper or work their way to the surface.
Computer simulations? No simulator comes close to being able to simulate real world variables. Throw millions at simulations and it still wont pickup real world issues. Simulations can only test things that someone thought to test, the point of the testing is to find the unexpected.
Simulations which can model all the physics are massively expensive too, much cheaper to just rent some space for a few months in the test town.

Reverse scope creep by SJHillman · 2011-09-06 22:34 · Score: 1

The article I saw last night said 350,000 people... now its down to 35,000. I bet tomorrow they'll change it to 3,500. And then 350. Eventually, it will just be a polebarn in the desert.

Ghost Lawsuits by retroworks · 2011-09-06 22:38 · Score: 1

To be a truly faux American city, it needs virtual law offices, courts, and lawsuits over easements and blocked views, and ghosts invested in keeping it from ever ever being built.

--
Gently reply

It will be a magnet... by AliasMarlowe · 2011-09-06 22:43 · Score: 1

...for hobos and other mobile homeless. How will they be kept out of all those uninhabited buildings? They may look uninhabitable to people with a place to live, but to the homeless, they might look not too bad.

--
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire

Re:It will be a magnet... by GauteL · 2011-09-06 23:15 · Score: 1, Insightful

"How will they be kept out of all those uninhabited buildings? They may look uninhabitable to people with a place to live, but to the homeless, they might look not too bad."
Hippie communes, perhaps. But regular hobos or homeless need food and alcohol, and they need other inhabitants to get those things. So they tend to gather where there are people.
Re:It will be a magnet... by vlm · 2011-09-06 23:22 · Score: 1

...for hobos and other mobile homeless. How will they be kept out of all those uninhabited buildings? They may look uninhabitable to people with a place to live, but to the homeless, they might look not too bad.
Don't need a floor for testing? Don't waste time and money building one.
The place could be infested just like a city park. But it should be less of a problem than an abandoned tract of mcmansions, and they seem to be doing fine.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Re:It will be a magnet... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-06 23:24 · Score: 1, Insightful

I'm homeless, I've been homeless for 9 years, and I don't "need alcohol".
You sedentary, uppity rich douchebags and your stereotypical stereotyping behaviour are half the problem.
Re:It will be a magnet... by Securityemo · 2011-09-07 00:35 · Score: 1

How do you support yourself and manage to have enough money over for stuff like medical bills (I'm assuming you live in the USA)? And why would someone knowingly choose to live like that? There's a vocal homeless community here in Sweden, and from what little I know it seriously doesn't seem like a fun life at all in most cases.

--
Emotions! In your brain!
Re:It will be a magnet... by Lumpy · 2011-09-07 00:36 · Score: 1

Roving bands of heavily armed children. IF you don't feed them then you eliminate the need for body disposal as the children will eat the hobos and trespassers.
Problem is what do you do with the children that get older and are chased out of town?

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:It will be a magnet... by Lumpy · 2011-09-07 00:40 · Score: 1

Amen brother.
I know several nomads that most rich idiots call "homeless". they live in a van (nice van!) or small RV and travel the country from job to job and living a life of freedom.
Honestly, if the economy gets any worse, I'm going that route. Liquidate everything, buying a mid sized RV and handing the keys for the house to the bank telling them to "suck it leeches"... In fact looking online a lot of people are doing this kind of lifestyle change.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:It will be a magnet... by joebagodonuts · 2011-09-07 01:04 · Score: 1

The lack of cigarettes and booze will take care of that

--
"Give a woman two glasses of wine and some pad thai, and they'll agree to just about anything." the Sports Guy
Re:It will be a magnet... by justsayin · 2011-09-07 01:40 · Score: 1

Ever see Logans Run? The older children aren't welcome anymore. They usually don't make it long out in the country side.
Re:It will be a magnet... by gestalt_n_pepper · 2011-09-07 01:50 · Score: 1

Roving bands of heavily armed children... children will eat the hobos and trespassers.
Given my experience living in New Mexico, this will happen on its own. Just put the city next to Espanola.

--
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Re:It will be a magnet... by BitZtream · 2011-09-07 02:11 · Score: 1

Other than the fact that its to be built in the middle of the desert?
First off, the homeless won't have a way there.
Second off, they won't have water when they get there.
Third off, they won't have food.
Fourth, and this is by far the most important, their won't be anyone else there for them to beg money from to buy the above things. Its really hard to leech off of other people when there are no other people there.

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Re:It will be a magnet... by BitZtream · 2011-09-07 02:13 · Score: 1

Just because your home MOVES doesn't make you HOMELESS.
I'd argue that living in a 'nice van' is still homeless however.
Having lived in a RV for a rather long time, I highly doubt you'd think it was nearly as great as you do now.

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Re:It will be a magnet... by zoloto · 2011-09-07 02:54 · Score: 0

Yeah but I bet you sure do "like it a whole lot"... friggin liar.
Re:It will be a magnet... by Lumpy · 2011-09-07 03:09 · Score: 1

Class B motorhome is by definition a "nice van"

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:It will be a magnet... by Grishnakh · 2011-09-07 06:17 · Score: 1

I know several nomads that most rich idiots call "homeless". they live in a van (nice van!) or small RV
Don't be stupid. According to that logic, someone who lives on a houseboat is "homeless", which is obviously wrong and stupid. Your "home" doesn't have to be a permanent structure, just some kind of shelter that provides a few amenities such as a toilet and a sink.
A "homeless" person is someone who doesn't have a home, plain and simple. Not a permanent structure, not a home on wheels, not a floating home, nothing. At best, they might have a cheap tent.
Honestly, if the economy gets any worse, I'm going that route. Liquidate everything, buying a mid sized RV
If the economy gets worse, one thing you can probably expect is oil prices to rise (thanks to increased demand from other countries whose economies aren't doing as badly). You do realize that RVs get horrible (usually single-digit) gas mileage, right? Plus, maybe you haven't looked into it lately, but the per-night fees at most RV campgrounds are pretty high; it's actually not that much more money to just get a hotel. RVs are a waste of money AFAICT. If you want to be mobile and move from city to city, changing jobs frequently, it seems like it'd be far more economical to have a regular car with good fuel economy that can hold all your stuff, and live in "extended stay" hotels or rent furnished apartments on a short-term basis. A 6-month stay in a furnished apartment or extended stay, plus gasoline usage at 30+ mpg, will surely be much cheaper than 132 days of campground fees plus the enormous gasoline costs to drive an RV across the country.
Re:It will be a magnet... by Richard_at_work · 2011-09-07 06:44 · Score: 1

The same way they keep them out of the military urban combat training areas I would think.
In the UK there is at least two full scale towns that I can think of that are used for training, and about a dozen villages - and that's just for the military, I also know of two urban training facilities for the police and private security companies. The main reason no one moves in is the same reason townships in Africa, and hobo towns in the US before they were removed and the problem hidden, always appear on the edge of a population centre - even the homeless need such things as food, water and sanitation and those things are significantly easier to source where they already exist for others.
Re:It will be a magnet... by BiggoronSword · 2011-09-07 06:58 · Score: 1

homeless people with jobs are called hobos, and they are irrelevant to this discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobo

--
interactive hologram, or it didn't happen.
Re:It will be a magnet... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-07 08:12 · Score: 0

Whatever, go grab another 40 you fuckin leech.

I think they did... by tlambert · 2011-09-06 22:45 · Score: 1

That was my first thought. I'm still waiting for someone to build a city like Eureka with... well... slightly lower requirements for residence. ;)

I think they did, only it's called Mountain View... ;p

-- Terry

Re:I think they did... by drinkypoo · 2011-09-07 00:48 · Score: 1

The requirements are all wrong, though. They don't require intelligence, only paleness.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:I think they did... by tlambert · 2011-09-10 19:22 · Score: 1

"slightly lower requirements for paleness"
'nuff said...
- Terry

Test value? by argStyopa · 2011-09-06 23:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

How will they actually test the viability of 'intelligent traffic systems' with no traffic?

In fact, most of those mentioned systems are about the interaction of that technology WITH PEOPLE in an urban environment. Just an empty urban environment doesn't get you much?

--
-Styopa

Re:Test value? by Gideon+Wells · 2011-09-06 23:36 · Score: 1

I am sure you could wrangle up a sufficient number of college students looking for credit, interns and retro-post modernist-faux-psuedo-quasi hippie hipsters to move in for a few months for relatively lost cost for those experiments.

--
by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
Re:Test value? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-07 00:06 · Score: 0

I am sure you could wrangle up a sufficient number of college students looking for credit, interns and retro-post modernist-faux-psuedo-quasi hippie hipsters to move in for a few months for relatively lost cost for those experiments.
But all those degenerates numbering 35,000 COMBINED are only worth 10 points - they will have to make the autopilots on the cars really bad an run multiple rounds to even place for the tech to survive the death race.
Re:Test value? by SeeSp0tRun · 2011-09-07 01:23 · Score: 1

Which reminds me of my drive to work this morning...
The human element is a huge factor in something like traffic, when you have people running red lights, right on red when it's a no-no, and lane changes with no blinker (signal for those of you not in the Boston area).
Given the circumstances of driving, and introducing the human element, I'd nominate Boston, LA, or something of the sorts.
Furthermore, I will gladly accept a government stipend to live in this town, and drive like I do to work.
As long as GLaDOS isn't running these experiments.

--
Something witty.
Re:Test value? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-07 01:24 · Score: 0

Oh snap! We hadn't thought of that. Never mind.....Hey guys, the project is over. Some dude on slashdot showed us the error of our ways.
Re:Test value? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-07 02:06 · Score: 0

They could use cars that drive themselves.
Re:Test value? by delinear · 2011-09-07 03:16 · Score: 1

I'm not sure how much use testing where the participants know they are in a test is anyway. Most of the issues I see on my daily commute are caused by one or two idiots doing something wrong, shooting a red light and forcing drivers who have the right of way to brake, backing up traffic behind them, or someone trying to do a U-Turn on a road that doesn't permit it because they missed their turning and blocking another lane of traffic in the process, not to mention the guy talking on his phone who rear-ends another car and puts an entire lane out of action for half a day. Once you start observing people, and they know they're being observed, their driving will suddenly become better because they're paying attention to what they're doing for your benefit. The only way to test intelligent traffic systems usefully would be in the real world (beyond some basic failsafe testing which arguably doesn't need a ghost town).
Re:Test value? by wired_parrot · 2011-09-07 08:56 · Score: 1

How will they actually test the viability of 'intelligent traffic systems' with no traffic?
In fact, most of those mentioned systems are about the interaction of that technology WITH PEOPLE in an urban environment. Just an empty urban environment doesn't get you much?
The point of this is that it is a controlled environment, where systems can be tested under lab-like conditions before being released into the urban "wild". Test subjects could be easily recruited to drive around in an instructed manner to replicate any given traffic pattern. This would make it much easier to debug a system before it is tested under real-life urban conditions. And given that this is a lab environment, you can also test the effect of a catastrophic system failures without any safety concerns.

Having a wonderful time, go away... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-06 23:18 · Score: 0

Sounds like a nice place to vacation actually...

Military training sites by vlm · 2011-09-06 23:25 · Score: 2

is planning to take part in an unprecedented science project — a 20-square-mile model of a small U.S. city.

Note the military has quite a few of these, although smaller scale. Also full of bullet holes. Which might actually be a bonus if you're planning on a technology deployment in "urban" areas.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger

Re:Military training sites by gatkinso · 2011-09-06 23:36 · Score: 3, Funny

>> Also full of bullet holes.
Why do you have to bring Baltimore into the discussion?

--
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Re:Military training sites by Overzeetop · 2011-09-07 02:28 · Score: 1

I was amazed at the central/central eastern side of B'more when I went through on the train a couple weeks ago. Street upon street of abandoned/vacant(?) and just horribly run down row houses. Sad, indeed.

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Re:Military training sites by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-08 02:51 · Score: 0

When I lived in DC my house had Plexiglas windows. The neighbors and carpenters all said the same thing: "it's easier to just put a piece of tape over the bullets holes than to replace a piece of glass. Ya know. they were right about that!

Not with my money by Overzeetop · 2011-09-06 23:42 · Score: 1

This better not get federal funding.

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?

Re:Not with my money by raddan · 2011-09-06 23:55 · Score: 1

If you read TFA, it's being developed by a private company in conjunction with the state of New Mexico, and it's expected to be a money-maker.
Re:Not with my money by fremsley471 · 2011-09-07 00:01 · Score: 1

There was a blog early last decade that purported to be by someone in the White House; lots of gossip about Condo Rice checking her bank account. Only thing that really stands out as credible data is that the DHS had so much cash in the budget, they couldn't spend it all on things within their remit. So they bought and stored in underground bunkers masses of expensive supplies, "Just in case".
This feels like the sort of thing a govt. dept. WOULD spend money on, as no sane private corporation would do this.
Re:Not with my money by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-07 00:11 · Score: 0

What's the proximity to Roswell? Alien abduction theme park?
Re:Not with my money by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-07 01:08 · Score: 0

I said the same thing about the Iraq War. Expect similar results.

But hey, maybe when they're done we can fill it with brown people and bomb the fuck out of it. Then we'll both be happy.

And as to your sig, when I look out at the world, I see one more stupid person than you do.
Re:Not with my money by Overzeetop · 2011-09-07 04:14 · Score: 1

Sorry, a technology company near D.C. just screams federal funding.
It may make money. Hell, the bridge to nowhere they built near Virginia Tech has been so profitable for auto research that they've canned the idea of actually extending it to connect the town to I-81 and using it for traffic. I'm skeptical, though, that a town without people will provide actual data on how systems interact with, well, people.

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?

Eureka! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-06 23:52 · Score: 0

So does this mean Eureka wasn't canceled after all?

But... by trum4n · 2011-09-07 00:04 · Score: 1

why can't i live there?

Nuketown? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-07 00:28 · Score: 0

Is this a Black Ops thing?

Buy out 35,000 mortgages instead? by Hadlock · 2011-09-07 00:30 · Score: 1

$200 million will buy housing for 35 thousand? There's a town just north of Dallas called Frisco, also known as "Frisclosure" for the number of foreclosures in the area. Why not just do the testing there? Or in Las Vegas where there are thousands of homes in neighborhoods sitting empty?

Considering the state of the housing/mortgage crisis, this seems like a prime pork barrel project. I'd rather see $200 million (let's rephrase that, $0.2 billion) spent buying out mortgages or at least the principal on many, many homes so people can afford to continue living in them and paying down the mortgages instead. Building even more homes, even in a "test city" seems like a poor decision given the rabid abundance in homes for sale on the already poor housing market.

--
moox. for a new generation.

a typical American town of 35,000 people by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-07 00:34 · Score: 0

so that's what? a Walmart with some trailer parks nearby, maybe a couple boarded up shops to call main street, that one weird house with all the arts and crafts in the yard, and maybe a couple fast food joints and a gas station by the road out of town...

Re:a typical American town of 35,000 people by omnichad · 2011-09-07 06:37 · Score: 1

That's a typical American town of 3,500 people in the midwest. They don't all have a Wal-Mart, but where on earth does a town of 35,000 look like that?

I can guess what they'll discover... by grumling · 2011-09-07 00:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

1) solar will be recommended. NM gets a ton of sunlight and it's a friggin' desert.
2) Insulation and sealing up the shell will have the biggest impact on energy efficiency.
3) Setting the thermostat to just above/below "uncomfortable" will be the second.
4) LED lighting will be the third.
5) The capital outlay will exceed the amount of money saved for the first 4-6 years... but only because energy production is subsidized in this country.

How much experimentation do we need? This ain't rocket science. Dad was right, turn down the heat and turn off the AC. Shut off the lights when you leave the room. You think I'm made of money or something?

--
"Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."

Re:I can guess what they'll discover... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-07 01:47 · Score: 0

You forgot "and you'll eat whatever is on the table, and be grateful for it, or go hungry."
Nevada, Michigan, and other areas already have large tracts of unoccupied housing.
If we HAVE to waste money on this, buy that up and declare it a Federal Testing Reserve. Building 35,000 homes from scratch for this project in the the center of the desert is just corrupt stupidity.
Re:I can guess what they'll discover... by delinear · 2011-09-07 03:22 · Score: 1

I hope they don't pick a dad who has the same double standards as mine. He'll complain if you leave one light burning for ten minutes while you're not in the room, but he'll happily heat the whole house to T-Shirt weather all winter just so he doesn't have to bother wearing a sweater.
Re:I can guess what they'll discover... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-07 03:36 · Score: 0

Testing real world smart grid systems is really expensive and time consuming with all the private property liability and it being people's houses and what not. I hope they pave the whole thing with solar roadways...
Re:I can guess what they'll discover... by Belial6 · 2011-09-07 04:45 · Score: 1

Eminent domain is an ugly messy business. All it takes is one little old lady that doesn't want to move, and you have a media firestorm about how evil the big bad corporation is. Now, take into account the number of people that would see the need to buy EVERY house in the area as a jackpot where they could extort the corporation by being the last holdout, and you have a situation where it is likely dramatically cheaper for the corporation to just build from ground up, if they could successfully purchase all the houses at all.

What is going to be your take on it when you read the news reports of a city using Eminent Domain to kick people out of their homes so that a corporation can buy them an use them for testing?

20 square miles for 35k people is "Typical"? by ThosLives · 2011-09-07 00:38 · Score: 2

I find it curious that the article says 35k people for 20 square miles is "typical". I'm familiar with several small cities with about 40k people in 9 square miles, and it's not that dense. 20 square miles for 35k people seems like a very inefficient city. 0.36 acres per person is not "city-like" at all.

Consider Detroit, which has lost a staggering amount of population, has a density of about 0.13 acres per person (using 700k and 139 square miles), and this idea of "typical" seems to be really poor.

--
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)

Re:20 square miles for 35k people is "Typical"? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-07 01:49 · Score: 0

Off by only a factor of three is pretty good for a government project.
I think if we are going to start doing 30's style work projects, I would prefer something with more long term tangible benefit.
Like the dam, bridge, grid, or park building instead of pouring money into a hole in the desert.
If it has to be there for political reasons, then at least build a solar array that can send power to somewhere it's needed.
Re:20 square miles for 35k people is "Typical"? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-07 01:54 · Score: 0

TFA, read it. notice the semantic difference between the words town and city.
Re:20 square miles for 35k people is "Typical"? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-07 04:11 · Score: 0

From TFA (emphasis added):

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. -- New Mexico, home to several of the nation's premier scientific, nuclear and military institutions, is planning to take part in an unprecedented science project -- a 20-square-mile model of a small U.S. city.

Of course, two paragraphs later it says "a typical American town." So apparently this is really an issue of poor editing.
Re:20 square miles for 35k people is "Typical"? by gknoy · 2011-09-07 06:16 · Score: 1

A "city" is a legal description of a type of civil entity. Some cities are dense urban areas (Detroit, Los Angeles). Other cities might be sparse or relatively un-populated. Taft, CA, for example ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft,_California ) has 9 thousand people in 15 square miles. California City has 14 thousand people in 200 square miles.
So, this project is more dense than some real cities, and less dense than most "real" cities.

I don't see why this is necessary. by xyourfacekillerx · 2011-09-07 00:39 · Score: 1

Even if it is, I sure hope no public funds go towards this colossal waste of time and money. Federal funds go to this, and I sure damn well better get some use out of it myself. /Taxpayer

Re:I don't see why this is necessary. by SleazyRidr · 2011-09-07 03:09 · Score: 1

Oh you'll get use out of it. You'll be quite happy when they test something new here, and it unexpectedly kills everyone in the town. That'll work out a lot better for you than if they tested it in your neighborhood.

--
Is 1563649 a prime number?

They should save their money by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-07 00:50 · Score: 0

and just buy Flint Michigan. LOL

Ghost Town by rossdee · 2011-09-07 01:03 · Score: 1

Is it something to do with the SyFy (or is that PsyPhy) channel?

Re:Ghost Town by Thud457 · 2011-09-07 03:00 · Score: 1

No, we're just trying to catch up to China. We need to have ghettos ready for the Newcomers when they arrive. I mean, you wouldn't want to live next to some noisy, smelly foreigner, would you?

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Waste waste waste. by gx5000 · 2011-09-07 01:17 · Score: 1

Ok sorry but what a sad pathetic waste of money.... They might as well ask China for one of theirs, lord knows they have quite a few of them, never been used and some are completed.

--
End of Line.

Re:Waste waste waste. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-07 01:47 · Score: 0

Mod up! Exactly what I was thinking, but you've already said it first. China has many ghost towns already built. Why waste further resources? It does not compute.

Nicer then my current house by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-07 01:27 · Score: 0

Make me the Mayor! and science me up!

Illegal immigrants, homeless, foreclosed by tekrat · 2011-09-07 01:31 · Score: 1

If they think a brand new, fully working "city" is going to stay uninhabited for long, they are too stupid to be performing "science".

Once construction starts, and word gets out, all the contractors will know, which will pass word down to the friends and families of people who know the construction workers, and pretty soon, you've got illegal immigrants moving in, homeless people moving in, people who've been foreclosed on and locked out of their own houses, i.e., basically a squatter situation, and, unless you've got a lot of guys with guns, it's going to be very hard to get them out of their free houses.

This will end badly. Anybody remember Lethal Weapon 3, where Richard Donner basically got permission to burn down an entire town that was never finished because the contractor ran out of money?

And why don't they use the abandoned town the Mythbusters already use for their driving tests?

It seems to me there's *already* quite a few abandoned towns west of the Rockies. Do we really need another?

--
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.

Re:Illegal immigrants, homeless, foreclosed by DigiShaman · 2011-09-07 01:50 · Score: 1

As others have pointed out, just ask China to use their ghost towns. But if we're going to do this on US soil, might as well build the town on land used and operated by the military. God knows we spend a lot of money on defense. Might as well provision the complex for special forces training.

--
Life is not for the lazy.
Re:Illegal immigrants, homeless, foreclosed by Belial6 · 2011-09-07 04:50 · Score: 1

If there are already abandoned towns, then why would all of the people flock to this one? If the entire town is part of the project, and all private property, it will be easy to spot the squaters, and easy to remove them. Heck, they could just set up buses from this town to one of the many other 'ghost towns' you mention, and there would be no reason for the people to come back to this one.
Re:Illegal immigrants, homeless, foreclosed by jmuzz · 2011-09-07 17:35 · Score: 1

If they think a brand new, fully working "city" is going to stay uninhabited for long, they are too stupid to be performing "science".
Once construction starts, and word gets out, all the contractors will know, which will pass word down to the friends and families of people who know the construction workers, and pretty soon, you've got illegal immigrants moving in, homeless people moving in, people who've been foreclosed on and locked out of their own houses, i.e., basically a squatter situation, and, unless you've got a lot of guys with guns,

As soon as a major defence contractor wants to rent some time, or the military wants to do some training there (yeah they have their own, but variety is always good) those guys with guns would be sent in.
Not that it would ever come to that. Its the middle of nowhere, most houses would just be empty shells without utilities and those with utilities would only be turned on when needed. $200 million doesnt buy that many fully furnished houses, even less when its also paying for roads.
No phone or TV reception, few animals to hunt, no chance of establishing crops, nowhere to buy food.
And its private property, they have to get past the entrance security to begin with, who by the way, can have guns, tazers, mace, dogs and drive big trucks to ram trespassing vehicles.
You make it sound like squatters can just walk into any private property and security guards with just politely ask them to leave. Head down to your nearest industrial facility or warehouse with a security guard at the front gate, see how far you can run in before they physically take you down, post your results.

No people = no lawsuits. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-07 01:45 · Score: 0

Sounds very inefficient and expensive to me.

It's society built by lawyers, speculators, and mad scientists. Ghost towns don't create massive lawsuits. Still, I don't understand why not just buy one of the many existing ghost cities for sale in many areas of the world. At least the costs for laying bricks and mortar would be less, even if they plan to build out new electric, communications, transportation, etc, for testing.

and then... by cyn1c77 · 2011-09-07 01:54 · Score: 1

... we'll nuke it!

China's Ghost Towns by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-07 02:15 · Score: 0

Hasn't China been doing this for years? ;-)

Why build when you can buy by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-07 02:36 · Score: 0

It's probably easier , cheaper and faster just to buy a ghost town in NM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playas,_New_Mexico.

Venus Project by dschnell · 2011-09-07 03:00 · Score: 1

Someone go talk to Jacque Fresco. He's already got the designs you need to product a 21st century city.

Budget problems, what budget problems? by OITLinebacker · 2011-09-07 03:08 · Score: 1

Give the money to NASA and go for a 35 person habitat on 1 square mile of the moon. More useful things can be learned there.

backup idea by slashmydots · 2011-09-07 04:46 · Score: 1

If they finish all their experiments and need something to do with it, I'm thinking paintball field!!!!!

Burning Man by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-07 05:06 · Score: 0

nuf' said :-)

Twilight Zone by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-07 05:41 · Score: 0

Twilight Zone, Season 1, episode 1, "Where is everybody", comes to mind.

Duplicate by Caerdwyn · 2011-09-07 05:59 · Score: 1

Typical governmental waste; building something new when we already have have the same thing.

Why not just use Detroit?

--
Everybody gets what the majority deserves.

if this van's a'rockin'... Murray got loose again! by Thud457 · 2011-09-07 07:58 · Score: 1

Yeah, but you've got to have mural of a wizard for it to be a bitchin' van.

--

the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

this'll change how we build cities! by Thud457 · 2011-09-07 08:16 · Score: 1

Yeah, I heard those new flying Segway II's still had a lot of shielding problems to work out.

--

the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

My thoughts: by black+soap · 2011-09-07 09:19 · Score: 1

1) People will live there. Support staff, maintenance guys, technicians, contractors. There will always be people there, not to mention an actual town to support all the people who intend to make use of such a place.

2) I am automatically suspicious of the deal. Is the company getting the land with government help? This sounds like the kind of scam they will get possession of the land, the project change direction a few times, and then someone will conveniently discover that mineral rights came with the land - and now the company will become a mining venture to profit from whatever mineral asset just happens to be found there. Paying lip service to actually working toward the original project goal is optional.

WHO.IS.NUMBER.ONE! by PMW · 2011-09-07 09:49 · Score: 1

..

Dope some guy and drop him into town... by buybuydandavis · 2011-09-07 10:42 · Score: 1

And Presto! Instant Twilight Zone episode!

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle by trk6640 · 2011-09-07 10:57 · Score: 1

Detroit would welcome the business.

life/art by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-08 01:44 · Score: 0

just call it EUREKA and have reality update everyweek...you know aliens time warps AI systems that go rogue...

Tech company tobuild Scinence in new mexico by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-08 22:34 · Score: 0

Dream come true

Science Business and thought News Infotech

fransisikus asisi hardi

filewpd2t2@gmail.com

www.siamhandtouch.com

Slashdot Mirror

Tech Company To Build Science Ghost Town In New Mexico

198 comments