Slashdot Mirror


A Physicist Says He Can Tornado-Proof the Midwest With 1,000-Foot Walls

meghan elizabeth writes: Temple physicist Rongjia Tao has a utopian proposal to build three massive, 1,000-foot-high, 165-foot-thick walls around the American Midwest, in order to keep the tornadoes out. Building three unfathomably massive anti-tornado walls would count as the infrastructure project of the decade, if not the century. It would be also be exceedingly expensive. "Building such walls is feasible," Tao says. "They are much easier than constructing a skyscraper. For example, in Philadelphia, the newly completed Comcast building has about 300-meter height. The wall with similar height as the Comcast building should be much easier to be constructed." Update: 06/28 04:14 GMT by T : Note: originally, this story said that Tao was at Drexel rather than Temple -- now corrected

301 of 501 comments (clear)

  1. Plus bonus.... by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...kaiju protection.

    1. Re:Plus bonus.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      But vulnerable to Titans.

    2. Re:Plus bonus.... by noelhenson · · Score: 1

      ...kaiju protection.

      As I recall, protection against kaiju was negligable at best.

    3. Re:Plus bonus.... by pushing-robot · · Score: 1

      ONCE AND FOR ALL!

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    4. Re:Plus bonus.... by Trogre · · Score: 1

      +1

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    5. Re:Plus bonus.... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      *rimshot*

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    6. Re:Plus bonus.... by vomitology · · Score: 1

      and zombie protection, as long as you don't sing too loud.

      --
      ~Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit, but Wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad.
    7. Re: Plus bonus.... by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 2

      Dude, THAT'S how they pay for it! You charge people for jumping off. Also, at that width we should be able to put some expressways on those babies... or bullet trains... really long flume rides... something.

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    8. Re:Plus bonus.... by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      what about Thetans?

    9. Re:Plus bonus.... by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 4, Funny

      *Pacific Rimshot*

      --
      Eat the rich.
    10. Re: Plus bonus.... by Guy+From+V · · Score: 1

      I'm all for Israeli models.

    11. Re:Plus bonus.... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      We'll, I'm glad someone got it... :-)

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    12. Re:Plus bonus.... by Phreakiture · · Score: 1

      If it is big enough to contain a couple of kaiju, you could have a kaiju cage match.

      --
      www.wavefront-av.com
    13. Re:Plus bonus.... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking more along the lines of a way to balance the federal budget instead.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    14. Re:Plus bonus.... by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      But that failed the first test in Australia....

    15. Re:Plus bonus.... by zeroryoko1974 · · Score: 1

      Beat me to it lol

  2. Your taxes at work by Cornwallis · · Score: 3, Funny

    Homeland Security will jump on this as the perfect opportunity to build a prison large enough to hold us.

    1. Re:Your taxes at work by Ronin+Developer · · Score: 4, Funny

      Okay...I am embarrassed...I WENT to Drexel. A 1000 ft wall AROUND the mid-west?

      What happens if somebody decides to fill it with water?

    2. Re:Your taxes at work by C3ntaur · · Score: 5, Funny

      What happens if somebody decides to fill it with water?

      One can only hope.

      --
      Loading...
    3. Re:Your taxes at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      The US governement can't even get off their ass to build a 30ft high fence along our southern border even though they got congressional approval and have millions of people wanting it... not to mention that fence would have a bigger positive benefit in our economy, crime-rate, and prison population that a frigin cement wall around the mid-west would.

    4. Re:Your taxes at work by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      The world's largest pool party?

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    5. Re:Your taxes at work by narcc · · Score: 1

      You actually believe that such a fence would keep people out?

      Amazing.

    6. Re:Your taxes at work by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Funny

      What happens if somebody decides to fill it with water?

      "Why have you broken your promise, O Lord?" *many sounds of construction, and animal noises*

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Your taxes at work by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      You actually believe that such a fence would keep people out?

      Amazing.

      It works in Israel, and it more or less works in Spain. What's the difference? Israel proactively patrols the border. In Spain has various groups that actively work against the border patorls, much like in the US where the current administration is doing the same thing at the behest of various groups. You guys are dense as a post, and I can almost bet that Canada would have a fence in place with active patrols along the border if the US turned into a 3rd world state.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    8. Re:Your taxes at work by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      I think it's a good idea to build a wall to prevent tornadoes, and I think the insurance companies should fund it. It only makes sense, since they have the most to gain from it.

    9. Re:Your taxes at work by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      European or African swallow?

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    10. Re:Your taxes at work by NFN_NLN · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You actually believe that such a fence would keep people out?

      Amazing.

      Great Wall of China... Mongols. I rest my case.

    11. Re:Your taxes at work by epyT-R · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course not, because the federal government created this complete lack of respect for the border with its pantywaisted policies and misconstrued cries of 'we're a country of immigrants.' Now mexico's problems, culture, and values are becoming our own, and what do we do? Teach our kids spanish, offer spanish cable tv channels, and politicians want bilingual highway signs. Their government is corrupt to the core, run by drug cartels. Maybe it's time we started shooting invaders again. After all, the mexican authorities would shoot us if we ignored their border en masse the way they do ours.

    12. Re:Your taxes at work by icebike · · Score: 1

      Turns out you don't have to go all the way around.
      But still, a wall long enough to interrupt or redirect the gulf flow will change the weather, and probably make the land it tried to protect un-farm-able.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    13. Re:Your taxes at work by rtb61 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I always thought the best method was to create inverted solar heated funnels with built in wind turbines at ground level and at the outlet, to basically create safety valves to enable hot air at ground level to continually vent to upper atmosphere and as a bonus provide energy to pay for the system. This to prevent the destructive funnel that would otherwise occur. You would need to space them so as to substantially reduce the risk of the natural funnel forming. You could also use them as communication towers, wireless and microwave broadband and mobile phones. As an additional bonus dependent upon region they can also collect water via direct rainfall as well as condensation.

      So rather than just attempting to solve one problem badly. A little out of the box thinking and funnel, 'heh' 'heh', many problems into one solution and achieve a far higher level of cost efficiency.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    14. Re:Your taxes at work by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Funny

      One can only hope.

      A fine display of liberalism.

      Yes, liberalism runs on hope.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    15. Re:Your taxes at work by plopez · · Score: 1

      You're safe unless you are an attorney

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    16. Re:Your taxes at work by __aanbvm4272 · · Score: 1

      Windtubines in lines / wall. the more you build the safer it is? I have often wondered if we could influence the twisters by the deflection of the windstream in a V shape turbulence?

    17. Re:Your taxes at work by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It works in Israel because there is a fraction of the linear border distance to fence and patrol and maintain. Israel has less than 760 kilometers of fence, The USA/Mexico border is around 3,169 km long. It also crosses some of the most inhospitable desert on the content. This adds more than a little difficulty in patrolling and maintaining any sort of 'fence'

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
    18. Re:Your taxes at work by kwbauer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yup, we in the US are racist for wanting some form of immigration control (keeping people from crossing the border south-to-north) but the Mexicans are simply exercising their sovereignty when they actual do work to prevent north-to-south movement.

      At least he is currently modded +2 while you are modded -1.

    19. Re:Your taxes at work by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      For the inhospitable desert part, you just put the fence near the edge of the desert. They want to sneak in there, fine, but stay in there. And buzzards will patrol it for free.

    20. Re:Your taxes at work by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 1
      I was going to make an anime Shingeki no Kyojin (Attack of the Titans) joke here, but someone else already beat me to it. So I'll work with this.

      Homeland Security will jump on this as the perfect opportunity to build a prison large enough to hold us.

      Already been done, at least in the movies.

      Escape from L.A.
      Escape from New York

      That, of course, pubs all of the criminals behind walls, leaving the innocent people outside. And now a slight change of topic: did you know there are so many laws that everyone is guilty of something.

      ...what an interesting coincidence.

      And tightening down the straps on my way too-thin tinfoil cap here, having a humongously-long wall would be handy to use as a backstop for all of the bullets Homeland Security has purchased. The question is: who are they going to put with their back to it?

      Or do they really expect Titans to break through?

      --
      If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
    21. Re:Your taxes at work by davester666 · · Score: 1

      That's what the border fence is for.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    22. Re:Your taxes at work by dbIII · · Score: 1

      The US governement can't even get off their ass to build a 30ft high fence along our southern border

      Easy, just build it with cheap illegal immigrants doing the work.
      The top less than 1% really like those cheap illegal immigrants and some of them make money out of prisons as well. They get to set policy until bribery carries less influence than votes.

    23. Re:Your taxes at work by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2

      Great Wall of China... Mongols. I rest my case.

      Yeah, that worked real well.

    24. Re:Your taxes at work by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      Spain's fences surround two cities. That's not quite the same as cutting a continent in half.

    25. Re:Your taxes at work by Monoman · · Score: 1

      What happens if somebody decides to fill it with water?

      No more drought. Duh.

      --
      Keep the Classic Slashdot.
    26. Re:Your taxes at work by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      . It also crosses some of the most inhospitable desert on the content. This adds more than a little difficulty in patrolling and maintaining any sort of 'fence'

      I guess the great wall was difficult to patrol as well...never mind.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    27. Re:Your taxes at work by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      Technically, Mexico is a first-world state since their a democracy who is aligned with NATO. The term comes from the Cold War...1st world=western democracies , 2nd=eastern communist (Warsaw Pact)/ 3rd=everyone else who hadn't chosen sides yet. Mexico might not be "highly prosperous" and seemingly not working with the US much... Part of the issue is we would have to cut ourselves off from the Rio Grande river, or put the wall in the middle of it. I would make it like the wall of Monsters, tall and fortified...or like Hadron's wall.

    28. Re:Your taxes at work by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 2

      It helps too as they are pretty much at war with their neighbors...so they can just shoot people far easier. If this many people rushed the Israeli border the IDF probably would have bombed them by now.

    29. Re:Your taxes at work by Deus.1.01 · · Score: 1

      But now they'll have whirlpool damage.

      --
      My -1 Troll is actually a +1 funny. And my -1 flame is actually a +1 insightfull.
    30. Re:Your taxes at work by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      Technically, Mexico is a first-world state since their a democracy who is aligned with NATO. The term comes from the Cold War...1st world=western democracies , 2nd=eastern communist (Warsaw Pact)/ 3rd=everyone else who hadn't chosen sides yet.

      Technically words and phrases can have more than one meaning and can change over time. In the case of third world countries, in recent decades that has shifted from the original definition of non-aligned countries to underdeveloped or developing nations.

    31. Re:Your taxes at work by Deus.1.01 · · Score: 1

      Well that wasn't a wall just a bunch of bunkers, guns and troop placement on the German border.
      And it did fulfill its purpose, its just that the fuckers went through Belgium instead.

      --
      My -1 Troll is actually a +1 funny. And my -1 flame is actually a +1 insightfull.
    32. Re:Your taxes at work by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Your data on Mexico is sorely lacking.
      Basically nothing you said is true.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    33. Re: Your taxes at work by gnick · · Score: 1

      ...people too lazy to walk 1000km around it...

      I would walk 500 km, and I would walk 500 more, just to be the man who walked 1,000 km...

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    34. Re:Your taxes at work by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      There is plenty of evidence that fences do indeed keep people on the side they are already on. At the very least, they slow them down enough to make it far easier to catch them.

      There is a reason we build fences in places other than just the Mexican border ... like Prisons. Do you think fences around prisons are a waste too? Whaat about that great big fence in some asian country ... like oh ... I don't know ... the Great Wall of China?

      Will it keep every illegal immigrant out? Of course not. Will it slow down a large number? OF COURSE.

      Get some fucking perspective.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    35. Re:Your taxes at work by ultranova · · Score: 1

      You actually believe that such a fence would keep people out?

      A better question is, would it keep the guns in America?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    36. Re:Your taxes at work by Sique · · Score: 1

      Spain has only some dozen kilometers of fence around their enclaves in North Africa. People now use boats to get to Lampedusa, which is in Italy, and being an isle, can't be easily fenced off.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    37. Re:Your taxes at work by Guy+From+V · · Score: 1

      Good question for the AG and BATFE.

    38. Re:Your taxes at work by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Are you saying doing NOTHING is equal to doing SOMETHING?

      People like you don't understand, that the fence is supposed to make it much harder (not impossible) to cross the border. As it is now, there is no restriction along most of the border, and it shows in the invasion that is currently happening under Obama's De Facto Amnesty program of "If you can get here, we won't kick you out".

      And all the poor Americans wanting a "living wage" are the same people supporting the wage suppression caused by illegal immigrants.

      Oh gee golly, illegal immigrants have nothing to do with wage suppression and minimum wages ... nooooooo /sarcasm

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    39. Re:Your taxes at work by russotto · · Score: 1

      That, of course, pubs all of the criminals behind walls, leaving the innocent people outside. And now a slight change of topic: did you know there are so many laws that everyone is guilty of something.

      Fine, put the wall around DC. We'll tell the politicians they're on the outside.

    40. Re:Your taxes at work by operagost · · Score: 2

      And change. Your change, preferably. Plus your bills. And your bank account. And maybe your retirement fund.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    41. Re:Your taxes at work by acsinc · · Score: 1

      Apparently you missed the Yuan dynasty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y...

    42. Re:Your taxes at work by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      Israel has less than 760 kilometers of fence

      That's one hell of a fence.

      Or, conversely, it's not the fence that's the problem, it's the giant concrete wall that it's built on top of. Bonus spiderman in picture because why the fuck not.

      It works in Israel because a majority of the population has no qualms with embracing apartheid. Israel, where hypocrisy is the national dish.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    43. Re:Your taxes at work by L.+J.+Beauregard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Pantywaisted policies"? Fine. Swarm this land with Homeland "Security" goons to find anyone who looks a little brown, ask them sus papeles, por favor and beat the mierda out of them when they answer in English. Oh, and we want freedom and small government, too. And low taxes.

      "Teach our kids Spanish"? Qué horror, que nuestros hijos aprendan otro idioma.

      "Offer Spanish cable TV channels"? What have you got against the free market?

      "Bilingual highway signs"? Citation needed, but yes, it's so much better to have people on the road who don't understand the signs.

      --
      Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
      Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
    44. Re:Your taxes at work by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      It's pretty easy for Americans to move to Mexico. Many don't even learn Spanish, living in English-speaking expat enclaves.

    45. Re:Your taxes at work by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      One can only hope.

      A fine display of liberalism.

      Yes, liberalism runs on hope.

      and success runs on work.

      Hoping the the Change is good has not worked out very well.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    46. Re:Your taxes at work by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      Nothing will stop the immigration just like nothing will stop the drug trade. All you can do is make it more expensive. They'll dig a thousand mile tunnel two hundred feet underground if necessary.

      If you want to stop illegal immigration you have to shut off the jobs and that means going after the employers. Nothing else will stop it.

    47. Re:Your taxes at work by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      or like Hadron's wall.

      The Supercollider? Oh, you probably mean Hadrian's Wall.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    48. Re:Your taxes at work by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Are you saying doing NOTHING is equal to doing SOMETHING?

      Yeah, like how we all know that security through obscurity is 100% ineffective and never ever helps anything at all.

      Oh wait...

      Obama's De Facto Amnesty program of "If you can get here, we won't kick you out".

      Yeah, I have yet to hear someone explain why we should be incentivizing sneaking into the country illegally (other than being here being a big enough incentive already apparently). But then everybody starts shouting about how I'm racist if I don't want immigrants being paid below minimum wage for shitty jobs. (Yes, I skipped a step or two, but that seems to be the end result.)

      Immigrate legally. If they won't let you in, you don't have a right to do it illegally anyway. That's why it's called illegal.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    49. Re:Your taxes at work by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      and success runs on work.

      The best predictor of success in our society is parentage. Hard work is down around #7 someplace.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    50. Re:Your taxes at work by quintus_horatius · · Score: 2

      The US governement can't even get off their ass to build a 30ft high fence along our southern border even though they got congressional approval and have millions of people wanting it

      Who wants it?

      • Do the politicians really want it? Or would they rather have an imminent threat of "illegals" to whip everyone else into a frenzy with?
      • Do the rich want it? Or would they prefer to hire cheap labor?
      • Do businesses want it? Or would they prefer to hire cheap labor and sell to them?
      • Do most citizens want it? Or do they not really care?
    51. Re:Your taxes at work by barc0001 · · Score: 1

      "It works in Israel because there is a fraction of the linear border distance to fence and patrol and maintain. Israel has less than 760 kilometers of fence,"

      So what you're saying is a country with a population of 10 million people can look after a 760 KM fence properly, but a country with 35x that population can't find the manpower to guard and maintain a fence 4x longer? Interesting....

    52. Re:Your taxes at work by sadboyzz · · Score: 4, Informative

      Great Wall of China... Mongols. I rest my case.

      Yeah, that worked real well.

      Actually, it's a common misconception to think that the Great Wall was built as a military defense mechanism in the event of full scale war. For one, it's too low, easily scalable by an army with the right tools. And secondly, it's too long, and can never be effectively manned along the full length. All in all, the Great Wall was never designed to function like a city wall.

      What the wall really does, and it does well, is act as a deterent and early warning mechanism against the annual and semi-annual small scale border raids from the northern nomadic tribes, where riders would just charge down south, loot what they can and quickly retreat back into the great prairies. It's actually a (relatively) economical answer to a persistent problem -- for it's very expensive for a settled agricutural civilization to mobilize an army, while it costs almost nothing for the nomads to gather up a group of riders and raid a small border settlement.

      And BTW, China is far from the only one in building a wall. Almost every settled civilization on the Eurasian continent, from Korea all the way to England, built a wall at some point in their history. The Chinese wall was the largest simply because China face the greatest threat from the Mongolian plains, which produced some of the most brutal and effiecient nomadic people in human history.

    53. Re:Your taxes at work by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      According to the brief summary the courts or attorneys or agency left for me, a college girl (US citizen) had one or more encounters with a college guy (US citizen) and the better part of a year later, I was born a US citizen. Pretty much the same way many Mexicans got there as well as the same way most Canadians got there and most Australians got there. They all have very strict, stricter than the US, immigration controls yet they aren't considered racist for it.

      Do you honestly think that Canada would just sit back and enjoy all the new immigrants if the US policy were to keep all the illegals crossing the southern border moving through to the northern border the way Mexico is doing?

    54. Re:Your taxes at work by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      Pretty easy if you ask permission first and if you are bringing enough money to not be adding to their social problems.

      Try walking across the border without permission and with no money and then see what happens.

    55. Re:Your taxes at work by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      Yes, it was an issue. Maybe not as big because the welfare net was not as developed.

    56. Re:Your taxes at work by geekoid · · Score: 2

      Do you have the slightest clue about the complexity of this issue? How much money it costs to catch and deport people? How evil it is to send people who where brought as children back to a country where the know no one?

      Have you even tried to think about it from any perspective other then 'it's illegal'? Why does it's illegal = deport? hmm?
      If you get a ticket for speeding, do they go back to where you started your drive, or do the fine you and let you continue on your way?

      And where do you deport them to if you don't know the country of origin? IF they where forced here?

      People like you keep focus on illegal and not on practicality, or the fact they're human beings.

      The current issue is the thousands of kids from all over south america are showing up. How do ou hand that? fo you send a 10 year old back to a country randomly? Back to someplace where they will die?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    57. Re:Your taxes at work by Dishevel · · Score: 1
      Good parents teach the value of work.

      You parents can give you a shit ton of money and send you to great schools. If you don't work you are not a success.

      You might have money and a good job, but if you did not earn it through some hard work of your own you are not a success.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    58. Re:Your taxes at work by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Good parents teach the value of work.

      They can, but that's not why.

      You parents can give you a shit ton of money

      Yes, they can. And that's why.

      and send you to great schools. If you don't work you are not a success.

      I think we all know of several high-profile examples of failing upwards.

      You might have money and a good job, but if you did not earn it through some hard work of your own you are not a success.

      Ah, you're going to drag around the goalposts. I knew that would come up eventually.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    59. Re:Your taxes at work by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Do you have the slightest clue about the complexity of this issue? How much money it costs to catch and deport people?

      I'm not saying we go out searching for them necessarily, but if we run into them, yes. We already spend ridiculous amounts of money federally on bullshit programs, what's a bit more anyway. Raise the taxes on the 1% by 0.001% ought to cover it, I'm sure. Oh, but right...we don't do that.

      How evil it is to send people who where brought as children back to a country where the know no one?

      A) You're arguing a reductio ad absurdum. I highly doubt most illegal immigrants are unattended children, and if they are, their guardians should be ashamed of themselves for putting them in such a dangerous situation to begin with. Hell, if the guardians are still on the other side of the border one might argue it *is* better to send them back to be with their guardians rather than be placed in foster care.

      B) Calling it "evil" is an emotionally loaded response and in no way objective. I wouldn't consider deportation in itself to be evil, but arguing this point at all is falling into your appeal to emotion.

      Have you even tried to think about it from any perspective other then 'it's illegal'? Why does it's illegal = deport? hmm?

      Well if there's middle-of-the-road solutions between "deport them" and "spend lots of federal money on them to ensure they're useful to society etc. etc. while just ignoring that it's illegal" I should like to hear them, I suppose; however I suspect you actually wouldn't want the conversation to go there. It's easier to just call me a hateful person.

      There are plenty of government policies I may not like, but this is not one of them. Saying "to be compassionate people, we have to throw our hands up and let them all stay" seems be about the same as revoking whatever relevant laws cover it anyway. In which case, why don't we do that? See if they have the votes.

      If you get a ticket for speeding, do they go back to where you started your drive, or do the fine you and let you continue on your way?

      No of course not, but you're claiming that they shouldn't even get fined. It's a terrible analogy. Letting you go on your way would be letting you stay in the country, which is the very thing that they're catching you for so of course they won't let you still do it.

      And where do you deport them to if you don't know the country of origin?

      Well, if they're coming over the southern land border, it's pretty obvious they're coming from Mexico. If they come over in dinky only-hold-together-for-a-week boats, they're probably coming from Cuba. Their original country seems a bit immaterial to me. If they can get to Mexico, they should be able to figure out how to get out of Mexico I would hope. If they're going to flaunt our laws to get here it seems rather weird that we'd be expected to treat them as law-abiding citizens.

      IF they where forced here?

      How many do you think are? And how do you define "forced"? If you asked them, I bet the majority of them would say "we were forced." Social pressure/desire for a better life != gun to the head.

      People like you keep focus on illegal and not on practicality, or the fact they're human beings.

      Oh ho ho, that's rich, calling *me* not pragmatic. And your liberal crying about how I should have a heart ("Animals can feel! They should vote! You should be a vegan!") is mostly misplaced as I *am* pretty liberal when it's not a really stupid issue.

      The current issue is the thousands of kids from all over south america are showing up. How do ou hand that? fo you send a 10 year old back to a country randomly? Back to someplace where they will die?

      Well I suppose it would be too much to ask to get the countries they're coming from to get them to knock it of

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    60. Re:Your taxes at work by losfromla · · Score: 1

      fucktwad!
      I like that word, it's like fuckwad only different.
      I like how fuckwad has changed, thanks!

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    61. Re:Your taxes at work by losfromla · · Score: 2

      Have you actually tried? It is easy-peasy to walk across the San Diego border to Mexico.

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    62. Re:Your taxes at work by losfromla · · Score: 1

      Are you really that obtuse? He wasn't asking about your mom and pops, but about your ancestors.
      Asides from tonto, I'll call you pendejo too.

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    63. Re:Your taxes at work by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      You kinda made his point.

    64. Re:Your taxes at work by losfromla · · Score: 1

      Really? How so? Attempting to be enigmatic is not a substitute for a lucid response so be clear about what you are trying to say.

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    65. Re:Your taxes at work by epyT-R · · Score: 2

      Hey, defending the border is actually one of the things the feds are supposed to do. Someone shows up at the border from abroad and shows a passport? American citizen? ok, let him in. Passport and no citizenship? well does he have alternative legitimate travel docs? if so, let him pass. If not, deny. Anyone else trying to get past the border is arrested and sent home. Mass invasions are dealt with by deadly force. I don't see a problem with this. It's not racist to do this. The borders keep the peace.

      Here, the market is simply an indicator that we are allowing mass numbers of non english speaking people into the country who have no interest in assimilating our culture, values or anything else. They just want to assimilate our money. Sorry, not when there are jobless american citizens living in sewers, or on the street.

      False dilemma. Most of the people here who can't read the signs aren't supposed to be here in the first place. Those who belong and can't read are either too young or need to take remedial english. Why should we roll out the red carpet for illegal immigrants? Ideally, becoming a citizen should involve at least a 9th grade level understanding of english and a comprehensive driver's ed...at a minimum. That way, among other things, they'll be able to read the signs AND know how to drive. People who want to be american, care about liberty and self-direction etc, are welcome to apply. Those just looking for socialist style welfare handouts on the taxpayers' backs need not.

    66. Re:Your taxes at work by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      It's gotta be better here than it is there if we've got millions of mexicans living illegally in the states.

    67. Re:Your taxes at work by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      I agree. Legalize the drugs, and the profit model collapses. Wide open borders made sense when we were an agrarian society with large expanses of land and almost no people. Today's debt ridden urban society can't afford to leak like a sieve. Illegal immigration is only one component of the welfare state that should be fixed. There are many more (no I do not support abolishing it altogether). Of course, the democrats don't want it fixed because the illegal->citizen path they keep trying to simplify is merely one tributary feeding a nice stable of reliable voters at taxpayer expense.

      Providing welfare to illegal citizens is like leaving the windows open with the AC on. You'll spend a lot of money, stress your equipment, and burn a lot of fuel, yet neither the house nor the world is cooled.

    68. Re:Your taxes at work by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      actually, a lot of them ARE unattended little children: http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/24/...

    69. Re:Your taxes at work by dywolf · · Score: 1

      and that's why youre data is lacking. your comments are based on an assumption. that assumption is itself wrong. Mexico is not some 3rd world nation people cannot wait to get out of.

      Their governement has a corruption problem, but really not vastly different from the revolving door in our own, and the lovemaking we see between congress critters and corporate lobbyists. the biggest problem the mexican government has is efective adminstration in rural areas, where cartels can actually rule, which does occur. And its not as all encompassing as people like to believe. Mexico has cartels, America has mafias and gangs and aryan nations. Most folks never see either unless they actually live in a cartel town, or a gang neighborhood. But Mexico is also HUGE, just like the US and Canada, which combined with the following comments on status as a "newly industrialized nation" makes the idea of weak federal adminstration in the far flung reaches hardly surprising. We see the same in Appalachia, Montana, Alaska, and similar far rural areas where a lot of folks have almost no interaction with our government.

      Mexico also has world class universities, a top rate healthcare system, and a diversified economy.
      Point is this: as a country, it may not be as advanced as other western nations, on total par with the US, England and Germany, but it's also not some backwater 3rd world cess pit. It's relatively new to the club ("newly industrialized"), but it is a member of the club.

      In terms of immigration, the flow of immigrants has declined in the past 10 years. Many of the illegals crossing the mexican border arent mexicans, but from even further south: honduras, nicaragua, even columbia. The children in Ft Sill, waiting to see if theyre allowed to stay (local Senator hopeful (and idiot) Lankford wants to send them home....back to the violence they were fleeing) under asylum or not, are from Guatemala. but it seems to me youre conflating the number of persons living here illegally already with the number of folks actually crossing the border. two different numbers.

      plus the concept of whether its better here or not is much like car insurance ads. Every ad says "the average person saved 500 odd dollars by switching to X". But that's a self selecting statistic. You arent going to switch unless you can get a good enough deal. It's a pain and hassle. There's early termination fees. Etc. Immigration is much the same way: there may be X leaving the country because for them it IS better, but theres also also a quantity Y who isnt because for them everything is fine. And for most of recent history that Y is still far larger than X.

      Presently there are an estimated 11 million persons living in the US illegally; that is actually lower than peak. And theyre not all Mexican, only about 6.6million are, so that's X. That's not a rate, thats just total present number, many of which may have been here for decades. Lets also consider the method of entry: about 5 million illegals are whats called "visa overstay", as in they entered legally, for work, vacation, whatever, and simply didnt leave when supposed to. (note that I dont have data handy about how these two data sets intersect, so for now just assume all 6.6mil crossed the border rather than overstaying a visa; it doesnt really change my point anyway)

      So only about 6 million actually crossed the border. Some portion also goes back across the border, having only come up temporarily and having no intention of staying. The number actually crossing and entering hte country yearly is only ~300k. Call that R. Now consider that Mexico's population is ~110million people.

      So to recap and break it down:
      X = 6.6 million, with a R of 300k/yr
      Y = 110million.

      So in conclusion, the notion that everyone is in a hurry to flee Mexico because its just sooo bad down there, is completely misguided.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    70. Re:Your taxes at work by Dishevel · · Score: 1
      No. No one said anything about criminalizing certain thoughts. We definitely should though teach people that personal responsibility is a good thing, that if your only info comes from TV you should not vote, that your freedoms are very important, more important than the things you want for free.

      We should get people back to blaming people. Break your ankle stepping off a curb? Pay fucking attention. Don't sue the city then make them paint every curb fluorescent green and purple. Don't spill hot coffee on yourself. Take care of your family. Learn that food stamps are a temporary fix and not make them a permanent fixture in your life.

      You do not have to make laws to change society. You just need to change the people.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    71. Re:Your taxes at work by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      if your only info comes from TV you should not vote

      Here's an idea, how about news that has to be based on fact, and they have to tell you when they're expressing opinion, as opposed to the situation we have now where they are expressly permitted to lie to you and call it news? I hear this works pretty well in countries where it is implemented. Some of them have even taken the awesome step of banning most kinds of advertising, and that doesn't seem to have any negative effects whatsoever either, but it does have several positive ones.

      that your freedoms are very important, more important than the things you want for free.

      If your basic needs are not met, your freedoms are a joke.

      We should get people back to blaming people. Break your ankle stepping off a curb? Pay fucking attention. Don't sue the city then make them paint every curb fluorescent green and purple.

      Why do you hate sidewalks? Why isn't it either the city's or property owner's responsibility to maintain a functional walk?

      Don't spill hot coffee on yourself.

      Oh, you're one of these trolls. Just in case anyone out there doesn't know, the coffee was being served 20 degrees over the temp specified in their operating manual, and the temp was set specifically because they knew that their cheapest-in-the-industry cups would not hold their shape properly at that temperature. The cups have since been revised and no longer have this problem. The company continues to specify that coffee should be held and served at a temperature substantially lower than that which burned that poor woman's cookie.

      Take care of your family.

      This, anyway, I can agree on. There's something.

      Learn that food stamps are a temporary fix and not make them a permanent fixture in your life.

      Learn that food stamps are designed to be a permanent entitlement, just like all welfare programs in our country; that doesn't mean they're not a valid concept, it means ours are broken and need fixing. Notably, when you start to better your situation, they reduce your assistance, so that you can never save any money and get yourself out of the shithole you're in.

      You do not have to make laws to change society. You just need to change the people.

      They've changed the people, all right. By placing unfunded mandates on education and permitting the media to lie to the people wholesale under the guise of news but in the name of cheap entertainment, they've ensured that the majority of people have no idea which end is up, let alone which way is left and which is right. Not to mention the false characterization of the American left as liberal, when it is centrist, and we have no real liberal representation in government.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    72. Re:Your taxes at work by Dishevel · · Score: 1
      You must be a conservative or a liberal. I only think this because you seem to operate on the principal that if someone does not like something someone says or thinks that the force of law must be used to "protect" the feelings of people.

      This is not true. No one wants people to think in a way that they believe is "wrong". That does not mean that I wish to legislate their thinking or even their speech. I have the power to ignore people, not do business with them, walk away or enter into debate. I make those decisions. With freedom comes responsibility. I am responsible for my feelings. Not some idiot with no ability to do any non surface based thinking.

      The power of the law does not exist to protect your feelings. It should be wielded to protect your life, your property and your freedoms only.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    73. Re:Your taxes at work by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      ... or when a tornado touches down *inside*?

    74. Re:Your taxes at work by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      You got cause and effect backwards. I'm suspecting you of wanting to use force of law because your words have made you seem that way.

      Which words scared you?

      This is not true. No one wants people to think in a way that they believe is "wrong". That does not mean that I wish to legislate their thinking or even their speech. I have the power to ignore people, not do business with them, walk away or enter into debate.

      That's not what you originally said. You said, and I quote, "we definitely should though teach people"

      I did say that.

      Who is this "we"? Using the word "we" conjured the image of quote unquote the public teaching (indoctrinating) individuals of what "we" perceive as the "right" values.

      The images of "We" conjured up in your mind are yours to deal with. In the teaching of values and morals to people, that is the responsibility of parents and family.

      You can say you don't stand for those things now, but I cannot peer into the then-future sir.

      So. What you are getting at here is that because you are not currently all knowing and all seeing that you can use your ignorance to state whatever you wish about others with no other type of proof?

      Interesting. Can you convict on this ignorance or only accuse?

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    75. Re:Your taxes at work by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      That, you losfromia, are even more racist than those you call racist. The Mexican government enforces far stricter border control than the US yet you consider the US racist for doing so. Almost every other country in the world enforces stricter border control than the US yet you only consider the US racist for doing so. That is one of my points that you made for me.

    76. Re:Your taxes at work by dl_sledding · · Score: 1

      Learn that food stamps are a temporary fix and not make them a permanent fixture in your life.

      You do not have to make laws to change society. You just need to change the people.

      Well said.

  3. Now we know by Punto · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now we know why there are no Tornados in Westeros.

    --

    --
    Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!

    1. Re:Now we know by Jonner · · Score: 1

      So, why don't we need to worry about White Walkers from Canadia?

    2. Re:Now we know by Drethon · · Score: 1

      You mean Russians from Siberia?

    3. Re:Now we know by flopsquad · · Score: 1

      You hoser, you should worry less about White Walkers than Red Riders, dontcha know?

      --
      Nothing posted to /. has ever been legal advice, including this.
  4. Flat or angled? by Aighearach · · Score: 3, Funny

    If you can go with a slope and build it as a triangular prism then it is easy to build, like a long pyramid. Jobs, jobs, jobs!

    1. Re:Flat or angled? by k31 · · Score: 1

      Ah, but, building megastructures which look like mountains is a good idea. It is sort of how we got skyscrapers in the first place.

    2. Re:Flat or angled? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You do know that, being dead, he cannot help you, right?

    3. Re:Flat or angled? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      If you can go with a slope and build it as a triangular prism then it is easy to build, like a long pyramid. Jobs, jobs, jobs!

      To me, the whole things sounds suspiciously like the Law of Unintended Consequences just waiting to happen.

    4. Re:Flat or angled? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Plant terraced farms on the south side, and tree farms on the north side. Jobs, jobs, jobs!

    5. Re:Flat or angled? by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      yeah...I would think this might just "shift" the tornado activity further east...these walls wouldn't dissipate energy just move it. With wind turbines we might actually dissipate some energy from the storms but that adds huge complexity to the idea. Add into this Oklahoma is getting hit with fracking-induced earthquakes all the time now in the 2-5 range...

    6. Re:Flat or angled? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      They don't have the wind speed. If you look at the graphic, you can imagine that it needs a certain amount of energy for the cyclone to stand up; otherwise it is just circling from the ground up a little ways and back down, like a Ferris wheel. And dumping rain. And it only has to be slowed down for a short time period, and it will be too mixed to stand up later.

  5. Dual use by riverat1 · · Score: 2

    If you're going to build something that large you might as well make it dual use. How about an archology?

  6. Watchers on the Wall by synaptik · · Score: 1

    Great! Then we can let our hardest criminals 'take the black', and defend the wall from The Others and these monstrous windy beasts.

    --
    HSJ$$*&#^!#+++ATH0
    NO CARRIER
  7. We'll be overrun by double-wides! by CQDX · · Score: 4, Funny

    The only natural predator of trailer homes are tornadoes. Are we prepared for the inevitable population explosion if we defeat tornadoes in the Mid-West? I don't think we'll be able to build Wal-marts fast enough.

    1. Re:We'll be overrun by double-wides! by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Besides, the trailer parks will spontaneously generate tornadoes, inside the walls.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    2. Re:We'll be overrun by double-wides! by Viol8 · · Score: 2

      Calm down or you'll break your trailer springs!

  8. Re:better idea by gargleblast · · Score: 1, Insightful

    To keep the guns out of Mexico, eh? Not such a bad idea ...

  9. You know... by amanaplanacanalpanam · · Score: 1

    This idea is so batshit crazy...I think we should do it. I don't even care whether it works as advertised. The Great Wall of China will pale in comparison.

    This could be our Apollo.

    1. Re:You know... by roc97007 · · Score: 4, Funny

      > This idea is so batshit crazy...I think we should do it. I don't even care whether it works as advertised. The Great Wall of China will pale in comparison.

      The idea of doing a gigantic project just because it's batshit crazy has an appeal, I grant you.

      > This could be our Apollo.

      Erm... we already had our Apollo... unless you're talking "our generation", in which case, get off my lawn.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  10. The infrastructure project of the decade by mbone · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Building three unfathomably massive anti-tornado walls would count as the infrastructure project of the decade, if not the century. It would be also be exceedingly expensive.

    If it is not exceedingly expensive, it's not the infrastructure project of the century.

  11. Re:stupid comparison by sed+quid+in+infernos · · Score: 1

    You missed the change in units. 300 meters is 984 (that is, about 1,000) feet. Don't feel bad, it happens to the best of us.

  12. Pedestrian by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 3, Funny

    Construct mighty engines of fearsome complexity and madness-inducing size to redirect the gyronormous aetheric power of these "tornadoes" towards the hated enemy.

    Nobody thinks cyclopean these days, that's what's wrong with society.

    1. Re:Pedestrian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I've never been this aroused.

  13. Re: better idea by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    Personally, I'm thinking about experiments in tsunami protection which involves rods/posts set up in such a way it creates a resonance effect that disrupts the whole thing, reflecting the energy back upon itself. Neat stuff, but I'm not an expert and am probably not using the right words.

    Still, setting up some massive wind turbines in the correct patterns should have the same effect at massively less cost, and actually provide power to boot.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  14. Re:stupid comparison by j-beda · · Score: 1

    to build three massive, 1,000-foot high, 165-foot thick walls

    For example, in Philadelphia, the newly completed Comcast building has about 300 meter height. The wall with similar height as the Comcast building should be much easier to be constructed.

    But the wall is not similar height, is it? it's 3 times that height. Also, it may be 165-ft thick, but how wide? all the way around the city is how many times wider than said Comcast building? a few thousand? so 9000+ times larger structure is somehow easier to construct?

    I blame the stupid writers who mix their units. 300m is about 1000 feet. As stupid as various measurement systems might be from anyone's perspective, mixing them should be a capital crime.

  15. feasible? by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

    I'd like an engineer to take a look at his plans. Claiming it is "feasible", and that it "should" be easier than a skyscraper does not exactly instill confidence.

    This guy is also a physicist. It would be nice to know what a geologist would think adding a man made mountain, or three, would do to the bedrock in the mid-west.

    Has he consulted with a climatologist? I suspect it would affect the local weather patterns at the very least. It would probably drastically change the weather pasterns on the east coat as well.

    What about migratory birds and such?

    1. Re:feasible? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      This guy is also a physicist.

      And not an engineer, as you said.

      Which means his theoretical model of how you go about this is rife with assumptions about perfectly spherical ducks. :-P

      What kind of volume of material are you talking about for this wall? How would you get it there? Do we have any other 1000 foot walls do draw upon as reference?

      My first though upon reading the headline was "right, sure it will".

      The sheer number of side effects, and the sheer scale of the undertaking means by the time you find out if it's feasible, or even a good idea ... you're probably already screwed.

      So many of these things just sound to me like some loon has come up with an unworkable idea, which they then pitch as being a viable solution, despite having no evidence for that and no idea of what would really happen.

      I predict this will never happen, could probably never be built, wouldn't work as advertised, and is therefore pretty meaningless. It's a Big Idea, with little practical value.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:feasible? by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Claiming it is "feasible", and that it "should" be easier than a skyscraper does not exactly instill confidence.

      Maybe since we screw up so many projects that "should totally work," we'd have more success trying projects that are "almost totally impossible?"

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  16. Reminds me of one engineer's maxim by Hussman32 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In theory, everything works in practice. In practice, it doesn't.

    --
    "Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
    1. Re:Reminds me of one engineer's maxim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of one engineer's maxim

      Yogi Berra wasn't an engineer.

    2. Re:Reminds me of one engineer's maxim by yo303 · · Score: 1

      In theory, the difference between practice and theory is due to practical considerations that theorists find it impractical to fit into their theories.

      In practice, theory uses the practice of theorizing about practical matters, while not noticing that the theoretical method practically distorts the theory beyond application to practice.

      Theoretically then, the practical facts are that theory is in practice good for predicting what happens in theory, but impractical as a theory with direct implications for practice, except where theory states that the practice is sufficiently close to the theory to make any difference, for all practical purposes, theoretically zero.

      In practice this does not happen very often.

    3. Re:Reminds me of one engineer's maxim by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      I heard it slightly differently, "In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice, they are not"

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  17. Did he mention by Pete+Venkman · · Score: 5, Funny

    That it only works for square tornadoes on an infinite plane of uniform density?

  18. Oh Geeez by jmd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wouldn't it be cheaper to move all of the people in the midwest to China? That's where all the jobs went anyway

  19. Re:stupid comparison by TheInternetGuy · · Score: 1

    to build three massive, 1,000-foot high, 165-foot thick walls

    For example, in Philadelphia, the newly completed Comcast building has about 300 meter height. The wall with similar height as the Comcast building should be much easier to be constructed.

    But the wall is not similar height, is it? it's 3 times that height. Also, it may be 165-ft thick, but how wide? all the way around the city is how many times wider than said Comcast building? a few thousand? so 9000+ times larger structure is somehow easier to construct?

    Some points to consider

    1000 foot = 304 meter.

    It is easier to construct a 3'x3' cube of concrete than a CPU, so size does not seem to be the only factor determining difficulty.

    --
    If my comment didn't sound as good in your head as it did in mine, then I guess we all know who's to blame
  20. Re:Ridiculously stupid by beelsebob · · Score: 1

    The idea IIRC is not to disrupt the tornadoes. It's to disrupt the much more benign winds that interact to form tornadoes once they reach the mid west.

  21. Re:better idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I thought it was to keep the hard working Mexicans from taking advantage of the drug using Americans...
    (Fact: For the most part Americans are the consumers.)
    But your idea works too.

  22. best idea by smittyoneeach · · Score: 2

    try {
    while() {
    build_wall();
    tear_down_wall();
    print( "Recovery!!!!1!!!!1!" );
    }
    }
    catch (error) {
    blame_Bush();
    }

    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  23. Re:Why not windmills instead? by canadiannomad · · Score: 1, Funny

    Yes! Lets make a giant 1000ft tall bird shredder! We might get some food out of it too >:)

    --
    Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
  24. Re: better idea by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2

    The East German wall was put up to keep the East Germans from escaping Communism. Countless people died trying to get over the wall to the West. Is there any documented case of somebody trying to escape INTO East Germany over the wall?

  25. Solar Freakin' Walls! by jabberw0k · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hey, those could be Solar Freakin' Walls and they could be made out of scratch-proof glass, topped with windmills and LEDs that you can see in the daytime and generate eleventysix times the electricity of [[transmission garbled]]

    1. Re:Solar Freakin' Walls! by phizi0n · · Score: 2

      To play Pong of course.

    2. Re:Solar Freakin' Walls! by Sobrique · · Score: 1

      World's biggest game of tetris....

    3. Re:Solar Freakin' Walls! by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Gotta have something to burn off all that electricity on, duh.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  26. Re: A truly idiotic democrat idea! by VTBlue · · Score: 1

    The needed resiliency for buildings and communities in tornado alley would be far beyond cost prohibitive without federal and state subsidy. Tornado resilient buildings are fiction. Today even the most resilient areas will succumb to massive disruption of life and economic output due to tornados. I live in Texas, and when Fort Worth had a tornado in the middle of downtown, talk buildings were essentially out of order for months due to damage. These were modern commercial structures too!

  27. Driverless cars prevent more deaths and cheaper by statemachine · · Score: 4, Insightful

    $160 million per mile, to prevent an average of 50-60 tornado deaths per year?

    1) Build 1000 miles? Only $160 billion? Is that cost of labor alone? What about the cost of land?
    2) Build just for cities? Which cities?
    3) How does a city afford even 1 mile of wall?

    We can drop nukes in tornadoes too for much less, not that I'm advocating that either.

    Just last year, there were 32,850 vehicle fatalities in the good ol' USofA.

    Driverless cars would've prevented 99% of the crashes. Let's concentrate on rolling those out first and soon.

    1. Re:Driverless cars prevent more deaths and cheaper by Sasayaki · · Score: 1

      Fucking this.

      --
      Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
    2. Re:Driverless cars prevent more deaths and cheaper by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      What's the economic damage of shutdowns due to tornados?

      A lot of talk about a city's traffic problems essentially focuses on the fact that a major car accident can wipe out productivity for an entire morning or day in a metropolis. How much productivity is being lost due to tornados? If you could prevent them entirely, then it could easily pay back many, many times the construction cost.

    3. Re:Driverless cars prevent more deaths and cheaper by jd2112 · · Score: 1

      We can drop nukes in tornadoes too for much less, not that I'm advocating that either.

      But we should probably keep this in mind in case of Sharknado.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    4. Re:Driverless cars prevent more deaths and cheaper by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      One mile of this wall would seem to me to be like roughly five hoover dams. The hoover dam cost $750 million in today's dollars. So wouldn't one mile of this super-wall cost $3.75 billion, not $160 million?

    5. Re:Driverless cars prevent more deaths and cheaper by statemachine · · Score: 2

      NHTSA: Economic costs of car crashes $277 billion

      I've provided two links now. Where are yours?

    6. Re:Driverless cars prevent more deaths and cheaper by roc97007 · · Score: 2

      > We can drop nukes in tornadoes too for much less, not that I'm advocating that either.

      But MAN.... that'd be cool to watch. From a safe distance.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    7. Re:Driverless cars prevent more deaths and cheaper by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      There is zero history of 'driverless cars' to use for comparative evidence. There is no chance in hell that I want to be on a snow covered road in January with driverless cars programmed by some twenty-something in Southern California around me.

      Let's wait awhile before 'driverless cars' is considered a panacea for car crashes.

      In the linked article, the part that caught my eye was: "âoeThis new report underscores the importance of our safety mission."

      Yeah. A NHTSA bureaucrat says that. The presentation was dude justifying his job.

    8. Re:Driverless cars prevent more deaths and cheaper by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      Nobody says "it's too expensive to build hydro plants" here, because all of our power is from hydro, and it's quite profitable for the government (who owns the power company)...

      If the Hoover Dam would have cost $10 billion today, that would only serve to bump up my cost estimate by an order of magnitude. I don't think that there's much of a difference between a $15 trillion and $150 trillion public works project, both are effectively "infinity dollars".

    9. Re:Driverless cars prevent more deaths and cheaper by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 2

      Why do you want to be on a snow covered road in January with cars around you that are being driven by some twenty-somethings with the standard overconfidence and thrill seeking that comes with that age group?
      I would prefer driverless cars over many human drivers nowadays. Especially in snowy conditions. I have had a tailgater while there was 20 cm snow. Winter tires are still uncommon here because it doesn't snow that much so (s)he probably didn't have those.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    10. Re:Driverless cars prevent more deaths and cheaper by rsborg · · Score: 1

      > We can drop nukes in tornadoes too for much less, not that I'm advocating that either.

      But MAN.... that'd be cool to watch. From a safe distance.

      Ripley recommends from orbit.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    11. Re:Driverless cars prevent more deaths and cheaper by strack · · Score: 1

      Today I learned that for the cost of the Iraq war, we could have built a 1000ft high wall halfway around the earth. I say fuck it, make it 500 ft and circle it all the way round.

    12. Re:Driverless cars prevent more deaths and cheaper by PhilHibbs · · Score: 1

      The Hoover Dam has to be strong enough to hold back all that water. These only need to disrupt the wind.

    13. Re:Driverless cars prevent more deaths and cheaper by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      NHTSA: Economic costs of car crashes $277 billion

      I've provided two links now. Where are yours?

      You do realize we can do both these things. They are both worth doing if they save money and lives. But we do not have driverless cars yet - and their are different obstacles to their implementation. If we can build a wall and go "yep, that'll save us 3 times it's cost" then we absolutely should do that.

      We do not need to tear down one in favor of the other. My point was solely that there are very sensible reasons to think tornado prevention with giga-engineering would be economically viable.

    14. Re:Driverless cars prevent more deaths and cheaper by dywolf · · Score: 1

      there is also the small matter of all the economic devatstation.
      both to the economy, and those displaced by the tornados.
      a tornado doesnt have to kill you to ruin your life.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    15. Re:Driverless cars prevent more deaths and cheaper by Gothmolly · · Score: 1

      To quote Sam Kinnison:

      Move where the tornadoes ARENT.

      --
      I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    16. Re:Driverless cars prevent more deaths and cheaper by flopsquad · · Score: 1

      Ha! Totally heard this ^ as part of a matter-of-fact radio exchange:

      "Permission to fuck this."

      "Permission granted."

      "Fucking this."

      "Fuck on, soldier."

      --
      Nothing posted to /. has ever been legal advice, including this.
    17. Re:Driverless cars prevent more deaths and cheaper by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Driverless cars would've prevented 99% of the crashes. Let's concentrate on rolling those out first and soon.

      That the few dozen (or whatever) prototype driverless cars have not been in any accidents YET does not prove they can magically prevent 99.999arbitrary9s% of crashes. Scale that up to 10% of traffic on the roads and then show me some numbers.

      In other news, I'm sure there are plenty of prototype aircraft that never got in any crashes. Of course, that's because they were never test-flown...

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    18. Re:Driverless cars prevent more deaths and cheaper by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      There was also the small issue of being able to generate electricity involved with the Hoover Dam. I'm sure they had to kick in a few bucks for the generators.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    19. Re:Driverless cars prevent more deaths and cheaper by Keyboard+Rage · · Score: 1

      Sooooo...how will your driverless car install its snow tires? Forced human labor? Or will it just refuse to drive away if it snows and it lacks snow tires? In that case, what will happen if people sleep in their car and a blizzard starts overnight? The car refuses to start and they freeze to death instead?

    20. Re:Driverless cars prevent more deaths and cheaper by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      > We can drop nukes in tornadoes too for much less, not that I'm advocating that either.

      But MAN.... that'd be cool to watch. From a safe distance.

      Ripley recommends from orbit.

      It's the only way to be sure.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    21. Re:Driverless cars prevent more deaths and cheaper by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      The driverless car will check conditions and adjust accordingly. Not all humans seem to do that.
      Also, the owner of a driverless car can just command it to get some winter tires while the owner is at work. Then it doesn't cost the owner any time.
      Thus the blizzard/sleeping issue is also a non-issue. The car will drive, but with speed and distance to other cars adjusted to match the conditions. You know, just like most human drivers do.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    22. Re:Driverless cars prevent more deaths and cheaper by Xaedalus · · Score: 1

      Nuclear Sharknados???? If that's the face of the Apocalypse, I'm in!

      --
      Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
  28. Well I have an idea!! by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

    Well I have an idea!! Lets move all our trash to the Midwest and create mountains. Not only will the mountains create a barrier for tornadoes they can also be tapped to natural gas from the rotting trash....Great idea I think :)

    --
    Jack of all trades,master of none
  29. Forth wall? by ASDFnz · · Score: 1

    Anyone else tempted to get them to build a forth wall?

    That way even if there are tornadoes we will not even here about it ;) .

    1. Re:Forth wall? by tepples · · Score: 1

      You couldn't "stack" things deep enough to build a Forth wall like that.

  30. Re: A theoretical wall? by VTBlue · · Score: 1

    This why engineers exist to translate. They talk to the physicists so the we don't have to*.

    *guess the movie reference?

  31. What could possibly go wrong? by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 2

    Needs it's own Bad News Brian meme. Here you go.

    --
    Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
  32. And an engineer says... by rolias · · Score: 1

    Good luck with that. Also, keeps out White Walkers and giants.

  33. Tornado resilient buildings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Tornado resilient buildings are simply buildings made out of concrete instead of toothpicks held together with toxic glue.

    Note: Resilient is not the same as damage proof.

    1. Re:Tornado resilient buildings by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      Because tornadoes don't hit the same place every few years, not even every few decades unless you consider Kansas to be the same place as Kansas for this type of discussion.

  34. Stealing our jobs by penguinoid · · Score: 3, Funny

    They're coming here, stealing our jobs. We need to build a fence to keep them out, and allow warrentless searches of anyone who looks like a tornado. Ironically, to save on costs, most of the wall will actually be built by tornadoes.

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  35. OP summary is bad. by Ectospheno · · Score: 2

    The proposal isn't to build a wall "around" anything. The proposal is to build three east-west walls to mimic the mountain ranges that have successfully limited supercell production in tornado alleys elsewhere on earth. Why OP threw in the word "around" is beyond me.

  36. How many Panama canals? by Animats · · Score: 5, Informative

    As an earthmoving project, each kilometer of wall is 18M cubic meters. The Panama Canal was about 250M cubic meters of earthmoving. So every 14KM of wall is one Panama Canal. The proposed Arabian Canal near Dubai (to create "valuable waterfront property" accessable by yacht) would require about 1100M cubic meters of earthmoving. So one Arabian Canal is about 60KM of wall.

    In terms of speed, one Bagger 288 can move about 250K cubic meters of earth a day. That's 5KM of wall per year. With one such $100 million machine for every 100KM of wall, the project would take 20 years.

    It's a big project, but not impossibly big. Just expensively big.

    1. Re:How many Panama canals? by rasmusbr · · Score: 1

      Expensive and dumb.

      If you're going to do something like this, why not build a system that harvests and concentrates the energy? Modern wind turbines are already not far from 1000 feet from the ground to the tip of the turbine blade. A little bit of R&D on stronger lightweight materials could probably lead to turbines taller than 1000 feet.

    2. Re:How many Panama canals? by jittles · · Score: 1

      As an earthmoving project, each kilometer of wall is 18M cubic meters. The Panama Canal was about 250M cubic meters of earthmoving. So every 14KM of wall is one Panama Canal.

      Yes but how many Library of Congresses is it per KM of wall? You need to stick with the established units of measure around here, son.

    3. Re:How many Panama canals? by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      Dirt isn't free and neither is the fuel to run them.

      Your main point is true, we can engineer pretty much anything (for example we could manually build a real mountain more than 10,000 feet high, it would just take hundreds of trillions of dollars), it's just a question of cost.

  37. Or by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1, Insightful

    People could stop living in places where a tornado comes through every few years. You hear the same complaints about people living in flood plains

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:Or by roc97007 · · Score: 2

      > People could stop living in places where a tornado comes through every few years.

      Unfortunately, that's where the food grows.

      > You hear the same complaints about people living in flood plains

      I think you do have a point there.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    2. Re:Or by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they should move instead to a Hurricane Zone, Flood Zone, Earthquake Zone, or Storm of the Century Zone (? - OK, Noreasters or whatever the devil it is they're called.)

      ...which unfortunately is the whole of the rest of the country I believe.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    3. Re:Or by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

      And food, and water. Yet when we find someone willing to move, we say sorry, immigration laws. Or housing prices. Or unemployment.

      Any time you can say "just move", there are all kinds of complications.

      So no, it really isn't that easy if you want a solution. If all you want to do is steal the oversimplified philosophy of dead comedians, yes it is just that easy.

  38. Re:stupid comparison by Guspaz · · Score: 5, Informative

    On the other hand, building a concrete *anything* that is a thousand feet tall and 165 feet thick isn't easy. They're claiming that a one-mile stretch of the wall would cost $160 million, which comes out to 871.2 million cubic feet of concrete, or a cost per cubic foot (including labour and materials) of about $0.18. That sounds really unlikely to me.

    Let me put it this way, the hoover dam is actually relatively similar to what we're talking about here. It's roughly 700 feet tall, varies from 45 to 600 feet thick, and is about a fifth of a mile wide... So let's say that the cross section of the hoover dam has about the same area as this proposed wall.

    OK, so now we just need the length of the wall. Well, the circumference of the American midwest is roughly 3900 miles (cutting through the great lakes, because what the hell). So basically, what we need to do, is build the equivalent of roughly 20,000 hoover dams.

    The hoover dam cost the equivalent of about $750 million to build. I suspect it would cost a lot more today than pure inflation would account for (unions, health and safety standards, etc), but let's say that technological progress would counteract all that...

    So, $750 million, times 20,000... and we come up with $15 trillion.

  39. Here's what we need by PPH · · Score: 1

    Some sort of structure that, when placed in the path of wind, produces a clockwise rotation in it (opposite that of cyclonic rotation). Ideally, these could be built as earthworks in the path tornadoes take to approach high value targets (towns, etc). If the earthworks could be built low and wide, the land could still be used for agriculture.

    I'll leave the details to actual mechanical and civil engineers. And collect my patent fees per the usual USPTO process.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  40. Appalachians by Dan+East · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I live in the Appalachian mountains. As I watch weather radar, observing weather systems come at us from the west, I've seen dozens if not hundreds of times over the years where very powerful, well-defined weather systems (individual cells as well as frontal systems) totally disintegrate as they cross over from flat regions of North Carolina and Tennessee into Virginia, because they hit a literal 1,000 foot wall of mountains. Tornadoes are extremely rare here. A few years ago we had small one that messed up a couple sheds and the canopy over a gas station, and that was the first in decades. So I do believe this physicist is onto something that would be effective. Whether or not it's practical or acceptable to construct such a thing is another question.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Appalachians by istartedi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      OK, we should all read this

      My big take-away is that the altitude makes all the difference. The "barrier" effect is less apparent.

      So. If the guy builds a wall, he'll take away Sunlight nearby. Maybe there could be some effect due to the local average altitude being higher; but a puny little wall or even a small mountain range vs. the entire continental pattern? Even if we could alter the climate of a continent... I thought climate change was bad.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    2. Re:Appalachians by istartedi · · Score: 1

      I don't see how you can do any meaningful engineering in this regard without picking winners and losers. Somebody is going to have less rain on their fields, less wind through their turbines, etc. I have seen in the local news where one suburban property owner sues another because he wants to cut down trees to get better solar power. Now take all those kinds of lawsuits and spread them out over 100s of square miles...

      As for "you've got to know what you're doing", just LOL. I think that even if we could get the funding to do this kind of thing there would be all kinds of unintended consequences. New environments invite new fauna. Some of them are nice.... some aren't. Not only that, you have to have acceptable outcomes during all phases of construction because it could take decades to build. So yeah, we "knew what we were doing" until phase B of the project actually results in more tornadoes and a plague of locusts in your particular county which the company assures us is "only temporary" where "temporary" is five years give or take... or it might be permanent because our analysis didn't even predict this.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    3. Re:Appalachians by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Isolated individual hills of about 500 feet high are all it takes to create a microclimate. This guy is talking about a third of a mountain range worth of average elevation from ground level. Does he not think this will alter climate patterns, possibly in a broad and irreversible way? Certainly it would alter rainfall patterns, perhaps causing moisture to pile up west of the wall and subsequent drought behind the wall.

      I'll take the relatively small risk of tornadoes, thanks.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  41. You must be new here. by Radical+Moderate · · Score: 1

    "Why OP threw in the word "around" is beyond me."
    Summaries are required to be inaccurate at the very least, outrageously misleading is preferred if you can manage it.

    --
    Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
  42. What the hell? by msobkow · · Score: 2

    Between the Higgs-Boson crap and this thread, I think Dice has decided to declare it "Give A Wingnut A Headline Week". :(

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  43. wait a minute by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    But then there's the fact that that's not how tornadoes work and they won't do anything.

  44. Re: better idea by Pete+Venkman · · Score: 3, Funny

    More importantly, how many tornadoes did Berlin have while the wall was up?

  45. It would only work temporarily by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 2

    After the walls were up for a while, some jackass land developers and greedy politicians would start building houses on top. And then we'd all of a sudden have the problem of exposed property again.

    Consider similar cases from history:
    - Houses on flood plains.
    - Houses right near beaches, especially eroding ones.
    - Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

  46. Re: better idea by TapeCutter · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A wall such as the one proposed would act as a mountain range diverting prevailing winds upwards, this is the very reason "tornado alley" exists in the first place, the storm cells are the physical manifestation of turbulence created by mountains. If you want to keep tornados out with a wall, the wall will need to rise above the troposphere, ie: the cruising altitude of a passenger jet (~5 miles). And even then, you would get atmospheric currents rising into the stratosphere that resembled the equatorial Hadley cells, which are responsible for both monsoons and the sub tropical desert zones.

    This physicist obviously hasn't thought this through and is looking only at the height of the tornado, however as a thought experiment it's truly worthy of a full xkcd "what if" analysis.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  47. Re:Ridiculously stupid by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

    Think of it as a great new way to test the law of unintended consequences.

  48. And Trojan Rabbits by Snufu · · Score: 1
  49. Costs by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    Quote:
    Each year in the U.S., 1,200 tornadoes on average kill 60 people, injure 1,500, and cause roughly $400 million in damages, putting long-term average tornado losses on par with hurricanes, according to a new report by Lloydâ(TM)s of London.

    âoeTornadoes: A Rising Risk?â finds that the U.S. experiences more tornadoes than anywhere else in the world. The year 2011 was especially vicious, with a record-breaking 1,600 tornadoes causing more than $25 billion in damages, surpassing records for the most tornadoes in a single month and daily.

    Other key findings in the report include:

    * With urbanization creeping into formerly rural areas, tornadoes are more likely to hit densely populated areas and cause more damages, as evidenced in the increase in the number of billion-dollar events.

    ---
    A big spread from $400 million to $25 billion per year.

    If it cost 160 million per mile... the potential payoff is 3 to 60 miles per year.

    So, in theory, this could pay for itself in 30 years.

    It seems like you could also combine it with wind generation and perhaps some other items (such as a very long high speed transportation system.

    I don't think it would have to be solid to work tho. At a minimum, I bet it would be nearly as effective if it were 90% solid. It only has to disrupt the wind patterns (basically long cylinders on their sides- not suppress them.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  50. Re:better idea by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    If we're going to send the Mexicans back anyway, sending the drug using Americans back in the same bus works for me. (A selling point might be that they'd be closer to the drugs.) Let's also send the business owners who increase profits by using "undocumented" workers as near-slave labor.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  51. Re: A truly idiotic democrat idea! by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't giant fans at strategic places perform the same function?

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  52. Salt Lake City by istartedi · · Score: 2

    Salt Lake City and the Salt Lake basin are surrounded by much higher natural "walls". Downtown SLC still managed to get a tornado. No, it was not a massive F5, but it was definitely a tornado in a place that doesn't even usually get them. Any meteorologist will tell you that mountains don't prevent tornadoes, so I'm highly skeptical of the whole idea.

    He's a physicist of course, so this only works on spherical chickens in a vacuum.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    1. Re:Salt Lake City by swillden · · Score: 1

      Salt Lake City and the Salt Lake basin are surrounded by much higher natural "walls". Downtown SLC still managed to get a tornado.

      One. In 30+ years. This in spite of the fact that tornadoes are quite common out on the lake.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    2. Re:Salt Lake City by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      He's a physicist of course, so this only works on spherical chickens in a vacuum.

      In other words, it'd be perfect for the McNuggets production line.

  53. No wind or rain, either? by Max+Threshold · · Score: 1

    Something tells me this idea wasn't very well thought out. And this guy has a PhD? I can also think of better things to spend that money on to save 500 lives a year...

  54. Re:Poor foresight by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    Does anyone feel like this could potentially alter climactic patterns across the whole continent? No big deal, just a fairly large mountain range where there wasn't previously one.

    Good point... that could be really interesting. Let's build it and find out.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  55. Re:Suggested walls by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    What if both sides of the wall are crazy?

  56. I know that joke! by swschrad · · Score: 4, Funny

    at the corner where Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin meet, three farmers were talking over the fence. they find a magic lamp, and the Iowa farmer rubs it. out comes the genie, and splits the three wishes between them. the Iowa farmer says, "I would like this place to be green and fertile forever, rich and promising." BANG! the corn is ten feet tall. the Wisconsin farmer says, "Our state is so beautiful, I would like a thousand-foot wall all around it, so we can enjoy these hills, this water, the land forever without interlopers." BANG, fence.

    the Minnesota farmer looks at the wall, and says, "Genie, we love our lakes. Fill that fence with water." BANG!

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  57. The real motivation behind this by zorro-z · · Score: 1

    1) Build huge, tornado-stopping wall system
    2) ?
    3) Profit!

    I mean, obviously.

    (PS: full-disclosure, I'm a Drexel alum)

    --
    -Z
  58. Re: better idea by lazy+genes · · Score: 3, Funny

    It would be much cheaper just to dump large amounts of powdered soap and water on them from a C130 to knock them apart. It would work better on a hurricane, dumping it on the rain bands would cause it to break up. The worst case scenario would be a 20 foot wall of suds moving at 80 mph, but it would be a clean city afterwards.

  59. maths by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

    ok, so he doesn't mention a length... but lets just start with one mile.

    The internal volume of 1000' * 165' * 5280' = 871,200,000 cubic feet
    That's 32 million cubic yards.
    Concrete, the most basic thing you'd have to make it out of averages about $75 per cubic yard.
    So this thing would cost $2.4 billion dollars, per mile, to build.

    This doesn't even factor in grading, paying workers, rerouting highways, etc...
    Oh, and you'd likely consume all the concrete in the US, driving up the price and crash industries all over the country because of it.

    Good luck!

    1. Re:maths by SecurityGuy · · Score: 1

      That's a good point. Before I RTFA, I thought it was meant to withstand a tornado. It's not. It's just meant to withstand normal winds, and by blocking them, prevent formation of tornadoes.

    2. Re:maths by ljw1004 · · Score: 1

      The author coated it at $160mil / mile

      It might be really cheap and thin, e.g. Eiffel Tower with venetian blinds to block the wind when needed?

    3. Re:maths by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      The author coated it at $160mil / mile

      It might be really cheap and thin, e.g. Eiffel Tower with venetian blinds to block the wind when needed?

      $160 million per mile would mean it would cost less than $5 per cubic yard to build. Does that even sound remotely plausible? That would mean it would have to take less than a total of 1 man hour per cubic yard to build, even without materials. lol

    4. Re:maths by SecurityGuy · · Score: 1

      Not tornado strong. We build 1000' tall buildings already. Building 1000' tall things that normal winds don't knock down is a solved problem.

  60. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If a physicist says it's possible, an engineer can point out it's not practical, but if a physicist says it's not possible, there's nothing an engineer can do.

  61. How long are they supposed to be? by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1

    I read TFA.

    Height? Check!

    Thickness? Check!

    Length? FAIL!

    This is why engineers generally build things and physicists don't. They forget those simple little details that end up being the most expensive issue!

  62. Serious Doubts by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    First, can it work? Next, will the wall be so heavy that it sinks?

  63. Re: better idea by Chickenlips · · Score: 1

    The Berlin Wall was built primarily to prevent people from escaping to the west.

  64. Re:Why not windmills instead? by epyT-R · · Score: 1

    SPLAT! FATALITY!! BBQ!

  65. Three walls? by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 1

    Lemont Illinois got hammered in the 70s-80s, plainfield,il got blasted in the in the 90s - and in the 2012 era the tornadoes have swung south of I-80 or along that line.

    This is a tiny fraction of the area that three gigantic walls are supposed to do something to protect.

    Anyone who thinks that Man can build Tornado Killer Walls should ask themselves why we can't predict gigantic storms on a regular and professionally reliable basis less than three hours in advance , but can back "tornado killing walls" and saying the science is settled - this can be done.

    I think we have a better chance of predicting an earthquake or volcano sometime in the next hundred years, than we do predicting how to stop tornadoes from hitting the midwest in the near future.

    --
    _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
    1. Re:Three walls? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Anyone who thinks that Man can build Tornado Killer Walls should ask themselves why we can't predict gigantic storms on a regular and professionally reliable basis

      Turbulent flow is hard to model. That's why we still put aircraft models in wind tunnels instead of doing it all on computer.

      predicting how to stop tornadoes from hitting the midwest

      Waaaay down south there's the Roaring 40s and the Furious 50s due to the prevailing winds going around the globe and little or no land in the way. If a lot of the midwest storms are due to nothing being there to break up the wind then it's not entirely insane to suggest breaking up that wind. It only gets insane when impractical suggestions are made as to how. For all we know it may be practical (or not) to put some objects upstream of densely populated areas to break up the wind, and they may not even have to be as insanely high as suggested to kick some air up high enough to disrupt storms. See examples of lines of trees planted along roads in cleared areas for an example of changing microclimate - it works there - maybe it's not entirely insane to scale it up and perhaps at least divert smaller storms.

  66. Climate effect? by SecurityGuy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I didn't see anything about the climate effect, if there would be one. Mucking around with wind flow in the area that makes a lot of our food may turn out to be a bad idea, in which case we'd get to see the biggest demolition project ever, and hope it's reversable.

    1. Re:Climate effect? by plopez · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The entire point of the wall is to change the climate by preventing moist gulf air and cold air from the north from mixing. The change to the rainfall regime would probably create an even larger desert than already exists in the area. If you do not believe me look at the current climate of northern China he cites. That is what will be created.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    2. Re:Climate effect? by SecurityGuy · · Score: 1

      I think the point of the wall is to change the weather (short term, hours/days), not the climate (long term prevailing conditions). I think we agree that it's not likely to work that way. This will change both, if it works at all, that is. 1000' is a pretty short mountain. Then again, I'm not a meteorologist.

  67. build fake trailer parks around cities divert by anwyn · · Score: 1
    Instead we could build fake trailor parks around cities to divert the tornados away! They always go for the trailer parks.

    It worked against the Germans in WWII.

    :-)

  68. Just adopt Dade County building codes in OK/KS/etc by Miamicanes · · Score: 4, Informative

    There's a fairly easy way the death toll due to tornadoes could be lowered over time in states like Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, etc -- adopt the same building codes we have in South Florida.

    Most people don't realize it, but South Florida experiences the most urban tornadoes per square mile per year in the entire United States. Granted, we basically never see EF4 and EF5 tornadoes... but we get plenty of the smaller ones.

    The strength of South Florida tornadoes is EGREGIOUSLY under-reported by the Enhanced Fujita scale, because the EF scale is defined primarily in terms of observed damage rather than measured wind speeds -- damage that just doesn't happen in Florida, even with directly-comparable storms. An EF1 tornado capable of wiping a neighborhood of matchstick McMansions off the map would barely make a dent in a neighborhood of concrete post-Andrew South Florida homes with large-missile impact glass windows (Google "ASTM 1886-1996"), and would probably be reported as an EF0 unless it hit a trailer park or a neighborhood with older homes. An EF1 tornado is basically 30 seconds of a category 1 or 2 hurricane... and a direct hit by a category 1 hurricane is the South Florida equivalent of a snow day in upstate New York.

    Anyway, the point is, if homes in suburban Kansas were built from reinforced concrete, deaths from anything short of an outright EF5 monster would basically fall into the category of "rare, unfortunate freak accidents" in areas where all the buildings were built to Dade County standards.

    Assorted SoFla torn-porn:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  69. Re:better idea by readin · · Score: 1

    To keep the guns out of Mexico, eh? Not such a bad idea ...

    Yep. Amazing isn't it. The same wall that would keep undocumented people from entering the country would also help keep guns from getting to the drug lords in Mexico, and would also greatly reduce the amount of illegal drugs entering the country, and would prevent many other kinds of contraband from flowing across the border, and would also reduce human trafficking. And it would allow us to amnesty the illegal immigrants already here without fear of encouraging larger waves of future illegal immigrants (like the Reagan amnesty and the illegal Obama Dream Act did).

    And if Democrats are to be believed about the usefulness of borrowing and spending, building a secure border would stimulate the economy as well.

    However this wonderful border wouldn't help rich people keep wages low so corrupt members of both parties don't want it. And a secure border won't help Democrats tilt demographics in their favor so even the less corrupt Democrats don't want it. Not to mention that if the border were secured and our immigration problems largely solved the Democrats would have one less excuse for falsely accusing their opponents of racism. So we're not getting a secure border anytime soon, if ever.

    --
    I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
  70. Re:stupid comparison by readin · · Score: 1

    It would have made more sense to complement the 1000 foot measurement with a measurement in yards. But any physicist crazy enough to propose a huge wall around the American midwest is most likely crazy enough to use metric.

    --
    I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
  71. We are Tornado. by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

    We are Tornado. Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  72. Re: better idea by kwbauer · · Score: 1

    So what you are saying is that we need to trick the Mexicans into building the wall to keep people from crossing because that was the real purpose of the Berlin Wall. It really was not intended to keep people out.

  73. Re:better idea by kwbauer · · Score: 1

    To keep the guns out of Mexico, we would have to stop exporting them to the Mexican government. Do people actually believe that the cartels are walking over here and buying M-16s and full-auto Uzis and then walking them back home. It is damn difficult to buy that stuff here.

  74. Canados! by Dutchmaan · · Score: 1

    If we displace tornadoes from their natural habitat, where will they go? One can only assume that being pinched between the Rockies and the Great Tornado Wall of America, they'll have no choice but to migrate into Canada where they'll be too polite to destroy anything. "Good Morning! eh!... I was wondering if it would be alright if I displaced your mobile home a few feet... no damage or anything, and I'll be gone before you're home from work. P.S. I left a 6 pack for your trouble."

  75. Re:stupid comparison by lordofthechia · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but even engineers can get lazy. Why try to get 3900 mile lines even when you can just copy an paste the hoover dam blue prints 20,000 times?

    --
    Georgia Tech, the leader in Chia(tm) technology.
  76. Re:Why not windmills instead? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    Biomass. Build biomass digesters surrounding the windmills. So the dead eagles can be turned into methane.

  77. Re: better idea by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    Are streets lined with parked Trabants similar to Trailer Parks?

  78. Re: better idea by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    The Mexicans don't need walls. They have police forces who vigorously work to identify any illegal aliens, and eject them out of Mexico. Want to work at any of the auto plants located south of the border, but you're a US Citizen? Sorry. Walls would just be an unnecessary expense.

  79. Re:stupid comparison by Guspaz · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but he's talking about a wall that is about 3.4 trillion cubic feet of concrete. Doesn't matter what the purpose is, that's an insurmountably high cost. Some googling shows that concrete costs roughly $3 per cubic foot. So... you're looking at a bill of materials for this wall of about ten trillion dollars for concrete alone, before the cost of labour and equipment...

  80. Re: Ridiculously stupid by pspahn · · Score: 1

    I can see the physicist now, proudly standing on that wall ...

    So much potential.

    --
    Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
  81. Re:stupid comparison by Guspaz · · Score: 1

    Yes. I bet you could get a sweet deal on that 3.4 trillion cubic feet of concrete, because any company would love to have your ten trillion dollar concrete contract.

    No need to mention that the wall alone would require doubling the world production of concrete for 12 years just to produce enough...

  82. Better idea by jonwil · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Instead of building a giant wall, just require that any new buildings (including replacements for damaged/destroyed ones) built in Tornado Alley MUST be strong enough to withstand a certain amount of force, that way if its hit by a big tornado, it wont collapse. Its been done elsewhere (mostly in areas where cyclones/hurricanes are a problem but the same standards will stop all but the biggest/most extreme tornadoes).

  83. It doesn't need to hold water by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Silly as the idea is, the wall doesn't need to be as solid as the Hoover dam and just has to be strong enough to not blow away in normal storms. I also don't understand why it has to be a wall and not a line of Mesas that cut down enough airflow.
    There's been success with far less extreme windy weather in one case of just planting lines of trees along roads to break up the air flow and cut down on minor storms. I wonder if some lines of much shorter obstacles would have a similar effect to this idea of an enormous wall - especially "soft" obstacles like trees that are moved by the wind and remove energy? Multiple lines of millions of cacti sound almost as ridiculous as 20,000 Hoover Dams but probably stand more chance of getting past a Science Fiction editor :)

  84. Considering where most items in America are made, by kamathln · · Score: 1

    How are you going to ship it from china?

  85. Tornado cloak by anomalous3 · · Score: 1

    I'm surprised no one (especially the guy who proposed it) has thought of this, but you wouldn't need a *wall*, per se. It would be MUCH cheaper to have a series of columns or earth mounds (or column reinforced earth mounds) spread out in the right locations (think pachinko array). Check out the seismic cloak and tsunami cloak ideas. You don't need to prevent the winds from mixing, just make sure they do it in a controlled manner so that the energy is dispersed more evenly. This would have the additional benefit of preserving most of the "normal" weather patterns in the area that allow crops to grow properly.

    1. Re:Tornado cloak by russotto · · Score: 1

      Tornados aren't like tsunamis or seismic waves. They don't start in some central location and travel great distances to smash puny human works. They typically form in thunderstorms, smash a few trailers, then dissipate. When they do damage over a wide area, it's usually because the same storm formed many tornadoes. So your pachinko array has two problems -- one, it would have to be everywhere. Two, the columns would have to be high enough to extend well into a thundercloud to disrupt funnel formation.

  86. and that'll look nice! by thephydes · · Score: 1

    WTF.... It may be possible who would want to live next to a 300m wall?

  87. Re:stupid comparison by ls671 · · Score: 1

    Just fricking virtualize it with yet another kind of evil force field instead! Gee, new for geeks...

    --
    Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
  88. Re:that's all fine and dandy until... by ls671 · · Score: 1

    I suspect no but a lot less frequently if he is right.

    --
    Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
  89. Re:stupid comparison by oobayly · · Score: 1

    Even if you're skimming the summary, if you see "1,000 foot" in the title, and then see the number "300" in the body text, then the immediate reaction should be "oh, they're probably using metres here". That's even if you're ignoring the fact that explicitly states the units used.

    mixing them should be a capital crime.

    Bollocks - I regularly mix units, because it sometimes makes a lot of sense. I've described something as a metre by a yard (it wasn't quite square). Similarly, I've described items in feet or inches in area, but thickness in millimetres (it tends to be anything less than 1/4 inch).

    Before you complain that not everyone knows basic conversions (not everyone's an engineer), it helps if you do any amount of travelling, especially if you're from the US or UK. Also, this topic is physics/engineering, so it usual to see mixed units - we see them when talking about rocket payloads all the time. Similarly, would you complain about the mixing of AUs, light years, millions of km/miles in an article about astrophysics or astronomy.

  90. Re:stupid comparison by oobayly · · Score: 1

    Yes, but you can't build the wall just to survive prevailing winds, what happens if it *does* get hit by a tornado?

    The problem is also that a long wall isn't like a rectangular tower - the drag coefficient will be far higher as a wall of this size can be assumed to act similarly to 2d flow (~2), compared to a tower (~1.3 -> 1.5), so loading will be much higher too. I might load up OpenFOAM to have a look.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_coefficient

  91. Either..... by flightmaker · · Score: 1

    As another contributor suggested, build everything from reinforced concrete. That way, there's no lengths of timber for the violent winds to tear off and fling around as deadly missiles in the first place. Also, perhaps some wind tunnel research could help with tornado resistance.

    Or, just build underground! Yes it initially costs more, but surely it's better to have property that you only need to build once rather than risk having it destroyed by weather. I bet the insurance would be damned cheap too compared to conventional building. Climate control is also going to be far easier and cheaper - anybody who's ever visited a show cave knows that the temperature stays almost constant throughout the year.

    As for the person who suggested the tornado wall, there are special places for people who are this confused......

  92. Re:Ridiculously stupid by oneandoneis2 · · Score: 1

    He's a physicist. He'll have assumed a spherical wall in a vacuum.

    --
    So.. it has come to this
  93. Walls? by N1AK · · Score: 1

    I've been trying to watch the entirity of Star Trek TNG. In one episode a system for monitoring and abating tornadoes is mentioned. I would expect any viable solution to tornadoes is going to be based on detecting likely tornadoes faster and applying counter-measures on a case by case basis. Most big tornadoes form from mesocyclones within supercells. Intervention to disrupt the formation of those mesocyclones, perhaps targetting the hot air updraft, is probably the most plausible way of stopping tornadoes.

  94. Nice. by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    Just make it hollow and live inside.

  95. Trains by DrYak · · Score: 3, Informative

    Driverless cars weigh more, but if you put the car on a rail and let a computer drive it would move 10x faster on 10x less energy and have no accidents. I added the costs that it would take to build a system like that and then realized it would pay for itself in 5 years.

    Welcome to Europe. Let me introduce you to this wonderful technology called "TRAINS" that we have here.
    We've scaled up your plan a bit (they also transport 100x the number of passengers).
    We've also jumped on the "electrical vehicle" bandwagon while we're at it (very few are still diesel powered)
    (also there's a human in front who can override the system just in case, though some metropolitan transport have gone 100% driverless).

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:Trains by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Dear European that has never been to America, let me explain to you how fucking BIG our country is, compared to your entire Continent.

      http://i.imgur.com/Eldeh.jpg

      Your Puny countries are easy to build trains for. Ours is as big as most of Europe, and the entire Mediterranean sea (which have no trains, only boats). Extrapolating your small countries problems to a geography the size of the USA doesn't work. Yes, Geography matters.

      Or let me put it this way, get on a train in Belgium and go to Israel. Go on, I dare ya. Oh wait, you can't!

      So, in conclusion, your ideas about how to scale trains, is so fucking adorable.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  96. Driverless car vs. remote control by DrYak · · Score: 1

    Yes, the government can assassinate anyone they want by remotely taking over a car. This "feature" has been in place in all vehicles since 2008.

    Do not confuse:

    - onboard I.A. that can react accordingly to surroundings.
    (we're progressively heading this way as more anti-collision features are shipped on cars)
    and doesn't rely at all on any remote access

    - a car that communicate with the network and the mothership can issue "kill the engine" commands (which, if the cars happens to be on a fast highway, also boils down to "kill the driver" command). There's no need of camera. There's no need of any IA. A pure classic car can be made to remotely shutdown given the proper hardware.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  97. Drexel? by PhilHibbs · · Score: 1

    Could they find a name that sounds more like a James Bond villain?

  98. Punishing works. Yeah, sure... by DrYak · · Score: 1

    Putting those responsible behind bars instead of back on the road again with a slap on the wrist should be exercised first

    Because exercising punishment is the best approach to bring back the deads ?
    What about putting some technology that would have prevented the deaths in the first place... "Oh, noes! Me don't want a NANNY STATE!"

    Humans have been driving themselves around for over a century now, and yet we're at our deadliest ever every single year we continue to do so.

    Over that century, the number of driving humans and their density on the roads has increased. The more cars in the same place, the higher the chance of two of them colliding.

    When exactly did humans become so irresponsible with 2 tons of steel and why?

    When they started to be too many on the roads.
    - People are stupid (even if every single person is average when singled out. But pack them together and they start doing stupid things). The more people you put on the road, the higher chance that some cretin will try something asinine and dangerous.
    - Also by increasing the number of cars, you increase the level of responsibility and concentration needed for the same level of safety. A century ago, if you lifted your eyes from the road a few seconds, the most likely to happe is that you would crash on a tree on the side of the nearly empty country-side road. Now, the same behaviour in our modern over-crowded fast highways would result into a massive death toll.

    We put a helmet on to ride a bicycle

    And we put seat-belts into cars (requirement nearly everywhere)
    And we put air-bags into cars (requirement in lots of places around).
    And we put collision avoidance system into cars (standards with some manufacturer like Volvo, and soon a requirement in EU in the next few years).

    all this are technologies that help diminish the death toll (proven by statistics).
    autonomous cars are just the next evolution of features that can help diminish the deaths.

    Just an additional tool. For when the driver is distracted, at least the AI can take care of the driving.

    but won't take a cell phone away from a teenager when they get behind the wheel.

    Yup, just tell the kids not to use the phone, your are 100% certain that every single one of them will comply.

    People will always be people. Bring enough of them at the same place and they'll invent new way to behave stupid.
    Hey, why don't we remove seat-belts, air-bags, etc. and just tell the people to be more careful ?
    Even better idea: remove traffic lights, remove traffic signs, etc. and just tell people to drive sane and not to crash?

    There's a point where you can't just trust that absolutely every single individual will behave perfectly.
    The more redundant safety you put into the system, the less risk that when the driver fails something bad will happen.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  99. We need butterfly wranglers, not walls. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    Why are we even thinking of this humongous expensive castles in the air projects? All we need are a set of trained butterfly wranglers in the Amazon to make butterflies to beat their wings at 180 degress out of phase with the tornado seeds. Like Bose noise cancelling device these counter wing beats will cancel the tornadoes. People never think of simple solutions. Always it has to be a huge multi trillion dollar project.. sheesh.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  100. Re:stupid comparison by Sobrique · · Score: 1

    Most tyres mix units. I have 220/50/R17 on mine - width in mm, depth in percentage ratio, and wheel radius in inches. This might seem utterly daft, until you realise that it makes dimension transposition quite difficult - you'll (almost!) always be able to sort the units into numeric order and get consistent results.

  101. Re:better idea by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

    seems to me we mostly just have the feds ship them straight to them ala Fast and Furious.

  102. Re:better idea by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

    Maybe where you live it is. If I had the cash I could pick up 50-100 in a day, double that if there's a gun show in town. Machine shop the firing mechanism for the automatic, and your done. Of course I live in Tulsa, OK so we are literally awash with weapons. I have two friends who could mill these...one of them does every once in awhile, if someone can come up with the proper paperwork. He's a licensed gunsmith so he has to be VERY careful doing weapon mods...but I've seen his work and often he uses "better parts" than the originals.

    Fast n Furious aside, I've been told most of the weapons are originally from various governments who "legitimately and legally" bought them from various manufactures. This is where they've gotten their packet-radio broadcast system the cartels have been setting up too, set up by Mexican special forces. The cartels are making so much money they can easily pay more than the real Army.

  103. Cons outweigh the pros by JonathanHart · · Score: 1

    This is likely to result in several unintentional weather effects that are not desirable for an area used heavily for farming. Firstly, decreased wind. There are several wind farms in service in the Midwest, which would undoubtedly have a problem with these walls. Second decreased rainfall. Moisture carrying wind will hit the wall before traveling over the enclosed land. When the wind hits the wall it'll cause water to precipitate out before the wind passes over, which is bad for farming, especially in an area known for having had some dust bowl problems in the past. Also, the infrastructure to supply the building materials does not exist. No existing business can supply the quantities of cement, aggregate, and steel to create the wall in a reasonable amount of time.

  104. So instead of building stronger homes... by AC-x · · Score: 1

    Right so, instead of building stronger homes that don't collapse into a heap during strong winds, we'll create an absolutely gigantic wall to protect all the flimsy nailed together timber and drywall constructions within?

    Yeah that makes perfect sense.

  105. Re:Or you could save money building monolithic dom by envelope · · Score: 2

    Yes, this. I wonder why building codes in tornado-prone areas don't require tornado-proof construction.

    --

    appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars
  106. Re: A theoretical wall? by BitZtream · · Score: 1

    Office Space

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  107. Re: better idea by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

    In other words, he's going to turn tornados into EL15 supertornados.

  108. Oh Geeez by _anomaly_ · · Score: 1

    That might have been where they went, but it's not where they're going...

    --
    "I have no special gift, I am only passionately curious." - Albert Einstein
  109. Does he say... by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

    Does he say what happens to agriculture in the Midwest by doing this? It would seem that if large scale wind farms can change rain patterns, a 1,000 foot wall could, too. One might even think it could have implications around the world -- the whole butterfly flapping its wings thing.

  110. Re:Why not windmills instead? by canadiannomad · · Score: 1

    Miss the /sarcasm tag and I'm flamebait. Moderators missing a sense of humour.

    --
    Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
  111. Landfill? by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

    Why not just build real mountains with landfill Not like we don't have enough garbage to do it.

    1. Re:Landfill? by dillee1 · · Score: 1

      Idiocracy: The Great Garbage Avalanche of 2505

    2. Re:Landfill? by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

      you mean in 2525 of course

  112. Re:stupid comparison by Arker · · Score: 1

    "Yes, but you can't build the wall just to survive prevailing winds, what happens if it *does* get hit by a tornado?"

    Presumably one section of the wall would be badly damaged. It would still be a relatively small section, and I would guess the wall would probably continue to function effectively even with several small sections taken out of it.

    I'm not saying the idea isnt ridiculous and impractical - just that it isnt ridiculous and impractical for the reasons the guy I was replying to gave.

    --
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
  113. Re: A theoretical wall? by Opie812 · · Score: 1

    you're a real people person aren't you?

    --
    I'm not a nerd. Nerds are smart.
  114. Re: better idea by Sique · · Score: 1

    That was never officially stated. Officially the Berlin Wall was supposed to keep foreign agents and provocateurs out.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  115. Insane by MitchDev · · Score: 1

    Every mile of this wall will waste 871,200 square feet of land (20 Acres), and they want it to encircle the entire midwest?

    While we're at it, let's bend time and space and use warp speed to meet Klingons and built transporters for superfast transportation....

  116. According to this theory... by tompaulco · · Score: 1

    According to this theory we should already have no tornadoes as we already have mountains to the west and to the east, as well as smaller mountain ranges of about that height within the midwest itself.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  117. Re: better idea by TangoMargarine · · Score: 2

    A wall such as the one proposed would act as a mountain range diverting prevailing winds upwards, this is the very reason "tornado alley" exists in the first place, the storm cells are the physical manifestation of turbulence created by mountains.

    Don't you just love it when the Gaians on the continent west of you start terraforming up mountain ranges and all your rainy squares start disappearing?

    Oh, and then there's the whole part where even though they're supposed to be the ecologically-sensitive faction they'll build just as much, if not more, boreholes and shit everywhere. Totally not inconsistent at all :)

    --
    Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  118. Re:stupid comparison by j-beda · · Score: 1

    mixing them should be a capital crime.

    Bollocks - I regularly mix units, because it sometimes makes a lot of sense. I've described something as a metre by a yard (it wasn't quite square). Similarly, I've described items in feet or inches in area, but thickness in millimetres (it tends to be anything less than 1/4 inch).

    Before you complain that not everyone knows basic conversions (not everyone's an engineer), it helps if you do any amount of travelling, especially if you're from the US or UK. Also, this topic is physics/engineering, so it usual to see mixed units - we see them when talking about rocket payloads all the time. Similarly, would you complain about the mixing of AUs, light years, millions of km/miles in an article about astrophysics or astronomy.

    Even you would not be so stupid as to mix units when directly comparing two things. You would never say something like "Alpha C is 4.3 light years away, while the voyager spacecraft has already traveled 18.2 billion kilometers! The stars are ours, if we take the time!" You wouldn't do that because the vast majority of your audience would not be able to make the comparison without a fair bit of work. Sure, using mm to describe the thickness of something who's other dimensions are described in other units could be appropriate, but using mm to describe the thickness of one thing, then comparing it to the thickness of something else in thousandths of an inch is just stupid. Your "metre by a yard" comparison is cute, but relying on people to know that a metre is about 3 inches more than a yard certainly is something that can lead to troubles.

  119. Re: Ridiculously stupid by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

    I am inviiiiiiincible

    --
    Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  120. Re: Ridiculously stupid by Lord+Lemur · · Score: 1

    +1 funny

  121. Re:stupid comparison by gregor-e · · Score: 1

    So we don't build it out of concrete. The Yellowstone supervolcano will eventually blow and wipe out most of civilization sometime in the next few millennia, unless we do something about it. We can't simply drill a hole to the top of the magma, since that would set it off. What we have to do is tunnel down deep, to the lower part of the magma column, where the density is much higher and the pressure much lower. From there, we can allow the magma column to bleed off pressure gradually, providing us with a constant stream of incandescent magma that can be used for whatever we like. Then all we'd have to do is come up with a high-temperature insulated conveyor belt to transfer all the fresh magma to wherever the current end of the casting is. We could build 1000-foot walls, cast castles, create huge canals or reservoirs, whatever we like. So long as we keep coming up with good uses for a never-ending stream of white-hot magma, we're set.

  122. Re:driverless cars? by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

    Somebody's watched that Dr. Who episode with the ATMOS one too many times.

    --
    Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  123. Biggest Fresh Water Reservoir in the World? by jsrjsr · · Score: 1

    Even bigger than the Great Lakes.

  124. Re: Ridiculously stupid by Remus+Shepherd · · Score: 2
    Speaking as a physicist myself, I'm not sure he knows what he's doing. Physicists tend to oversimplify things.

    Picture a massless, spherical cow.

    Now picture that massless, spherical cow bouncing like a pinball around a giant tornado hemmed in by a thousand-foot wall...

    --
    Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
  125. Re: better idea by kwbauer · · Score: 1

    I was mainly trying to point out that the Berlin wall was built to keep people in East Berlin not out of it.

    But you do make an interesting point about how the Mexican government has much better border enforcement than the US. Why is it that we are racist for doing those same things on the north side of that border? That is the real question and I'm not saying you are playing the race card, just that it gets played.

  126. Re:better idea by kwbauer · · Score: 1

    And you missed the point entirely. You can buy semi-auto versions of the M-16 that are referred to as AR-15s and then illegally (if you don't have the extra permits) convert them to work full-auto. The cartels are running around with actual select-fire M-16s. Those were not purchased at any gun store in the US and smuggled across the border. You do allude to this in your second paragraph.

    Fast n Furious was a smoke screen designed to "prove" the falsehood of regular US gun store purchases being how the cartels get weapons as a truth in order to justify shutting down legal US sales.

  127. Alt by Drexus · · Score: 1

    Why not divert the proposed funds towards housing that can sustain the conditions of its environment? Do your feet not develop a callus from walking without shoes? Do we not use mittens when taking dinner out of the oven? Why are so many lost when challenged with problems already solved in the natural world?

  128. physisst speak outside his expertise by geekoid · · Score: 1

    looks foolish. News at 11.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:physisst speak outside his expertise by careysub · · Score: 1

      looks foolish. News at 11.

      Bingo!

      Among the many problems with this proposal -h is notion of the wall's construction is preposterous. This is very similar to the world's highest concrete arch dams - which require solid rock foundations. A 2000 km structure 300 meters high would have to be built as an earth dam. One plus of this is that don't need billions of tons of concrete, just lots and lots of dirt and rocks, a minus is that the base is ~4 times the width of height so this structure is a kilometer plus thick. The proposal then is essentially to build a continent spanning mountain range.

      Using the Tehri Dam in India as a model (260 m tall, 575 m long, cost $1 billion) the cost per kilometer would be on the order of $3 billion per kilometer, or $6 trillion dollars total. The total number of people in the tornado belt is about 70 million, so the cost is roughly $100,000 per person in round numbers. Meanwhile an F5 tornado shelter can be bought for $3000. So at a small fraction of this cost (and environmental impact) every building in the tornado belt could have a shelter able to withstand even the most intense tornados.

      The original paper also asserts that this would save money over time by reducing property damage. Annual tornado damage runs $400 million, so it would take 15,000 years for this "savings" to occur, assuming the interest on the investment is zero.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  129. Jaeger by Wuahn · · Score: 1

    I'm not the first to say this, but I've got two words for you. Pacific Rim.

  130. Obligatory comics about physicists by dywolf · · Score: 1

    Along those lines, the Obligatory XKCD....and SMBC's Lifecycle of a Physicist

    http://xkcd.com/793/
    http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id...

    --
    The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  131. Re:Better idea by dywolf · · Score: 1

    impractical.
    designing for major events is pssible.
    we could make a totally earthquake building, one that could withstand the strongest hurricane or tornado....
    but no one actually does it, because it was cost eleventy gajillion dollars. its not cost justifiable. the cost increases as a faster (exponential even) rate than the additional strength of the structure does.

    its why structural engineers dont plan for the biggest flood ever, the biggest wind ever, or the biggest quake ever.
    they do statistical anallysis and plan for the 100 year flood (or sometimes 500 year flood), or equivalents for the other natural disasters, because that covers 99.99%.

    all that said, in the midwest, youre going to be hard pressed to replace manufactured housing (note: different frm a trailer) becauwe when you get way out in the boonies, its just much easier to truck in a modular house that was assembled elsewhere than to have one built on site.

    --
    The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  132. Rain shadow? by mick129 · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't this cause a rain shadow? The midwest would stop being useful farm land if all the moisture coming from the gulf stopped at the north end of Texas...

    --
    Move along, no sig to see here.
  133. Re:Better idea by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    we could make a totally earthquake building, one that could withstand the strongest hurricane or tornado....
    but no one actually does it, because it was cost eleventy gajillion dollars.

    Then they had better move.

    One alternative to give people might be seasonal residence. You get a trailer, and you get inspections to make sure it will still roll (and that your tow vehicle will still haul it) when the evacuations happen. Then they can all plague all the neighboring states for a while while the weather inevitably rambles through the states they've been living in, heedless of the consequences of their purchasing decisions.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  134. Re:stupid comparison by Guspaz · · Score: 1

    Yes, because the idea of harnessing a supervolcano to build a 3900 mile long tornado-killing wall sounds so much more reasonable ;)

  135. Re:stupid comparison by oobayly · · Score: 1

    You would never say something like "Alpha C is 4.3 light years away, while the voyager spacecraft has already traveled 18.2 billion kilometers! The stars are ours, if we take the time!"

    Well, to be fair you were originally complaining about the authors mixing units, and nowhere did they do so in a single sentence.

    Your "metre by a yard" comparison is cute, but relying on people to know that a metre is about 3 inches more than a yard certainly is something that can lead to troubles.

    i made this comment (I can't remember what it was about) in front of a group of friends in uni(engineering, management, nursing students) - some of those I knew would understand. Those that didn't, they asked, because it was obvious there was a difference, otherwise I would have said "a metre by a metre". Now they know, or at least knew for a period afterwards. As far as I'm concerned, there's no reason to be embarrassed about being ignorant of something simple. Choosing to stay ignorant is a different matter.

  136. Call me crazy, but why not just build tornado-proof houses instead?

  137. Can we make the walls out of ice? by dataspel · · Score: 1

    Because winter is coming.

  138. Re:Just adopt Dade County building codes in OK/KS/ by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

    You're right that concrete isn't a guarantee... but true EF5 tornadoes are almost as rare as landfalling category 5 hurricanes... and EF4 tornadoes aren't a whole lot more common. On the other hand, EF0 tornadoes are abundant, EF1 tornadoes are common, and EF2 tornadoes aren't particularly UNcommon. Switching to Florida-style construction wouldn't eliminate the risk of death or injury from a tornado altogether (because frankly, the only place that's safe to be when an EF5 hits your house is "somewhere else, far away")... but it WOULD basically eliminate meaningful damage from common EF0 tornadoes, would dramatically reduce property damage and injuries from EF1 tornadoes, and would almost certainly reduce the death toll (though not necessarily number of injuries or number of houses rendered uninhabitable) for EF2 and EF3 tornadoes. So yes, an unlikely (but non-inconceivable) EF5 tornado hitting downtown Kansas City mid-afternoon would still result in unfathomable carnage... but the dozen or so EF0 and EF1 tornadoes that hit the KC metro area over any given 5-year timespan would barely earn more than a few minutes of semi-sensationalistic coverage on the local TV news (maybe CNN, if someone gets good video footage of the tornado itself & it's a slow-news day).

  139. A wall made of feet? by Optali · · Score: 1
    Why would this guy want to make a wall of feet?

    And what does he mean exactly: Feet with people still attached to it or severed feed?

    --
    -- 29A the number of the Beast
  140. Re: better idea by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    Mexicans and Americans (USians?) aren't really races. It's more a matter of nationalism. People seldom 'play the nationalism card' because if you identify yourself an internationalist, you get redbaited.

    Probably the Mexicans are more protective of the jobs within their country because they don't want Americans traveling down and crowding their people out of the skilled wellpaying jobs.

    Really, the immigration problem is a tragedy for the countries that the people immigrate from. When the US gets the most skilled and ambitious people from all of Central America, it means they're drained from their own local communities. It undoubtedly hurts any efforts in those countries to grow a local economy and a middle class.

  141. Reasons for such a long distance travel by DrYak · · Score: 1

    Or let me put it this way, get on a train in Belgium and go to Israel. Go on, I dare ya. Oh wait, you can't!

    Leave apart the fact that it is actually possible, but it would be a journey that takes several days and quite a few stops to change trains in european capital cities (these are distances where using air planes start to actually make sense). (Although I happen to have taken night trains across europe over long distance. But these are easier: instead of having to change trains, they switch the trains' cars around and so you stay in the same cabin until you arrive at your destination city)

    Leave also apart the fact that we happen to have "geography" between these two points: mountains (Alps), sea (e.g.: the Mediterranean sea that you mention), etc. whereas your country is mostly flat (that's why the tornadoes happen much more easily, to go back to TFA's point. that also means that if anything, building a large-scale rail-road system would probably be much more easy in the US than in EU).

    The main problem is: why in the first place should I travel such a long way ?

    Answer A: for vacations.
    Yup, why not. Go on, go visit Israel for you vacations. I've heard there are nice surfing spots there too.
    And as said above, taking an airplane is the most sensible solution. (Though I've been on such long distance road trip across Europe by car, in addition to train as mentioned above). (And money-broken students take busses, that's the cheapest way around).
    The thread was talking about cars, and driverless cars. Given the speed of current cars, such a long distance trip would take even longer by car than by rail. So "my country is bigger" argument won't actually work in favour of cars against trains, but in favour of planes against trains and cars.

    Answer B: for work
    And that's the biggest problem regarding transportation you have in the US: your society is organised in such crazy way that the biggest part of the population has to commute over such bat-shit crazy distance on a regular basis. Nobody in his/her right mind will live in Belgium and travel for work to Israel. Not even by car. Nor plane or trains. If you get a job in Israel, you move there, so you're living nearby your work place. And if you miss Belgium, you can always travel back there for vacation (refer to "A" above).

    The main problem is not that train would be impossible. (They are possible), neither is the huge distance (it's flat. it would actually be easier to build train there than here).
    The main problem is the distribution of the population (spread all over) and their travel needs (bat-shit fucking crazy distance, each individual travelling that distance in a completely different direction) so it's not easy to group those needs together and have the people travel together in groups (the basic requirement for any public transportation network).

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  142. They are called Red woods... by LucasPick · · Score: 1

    They are called Red woods...