Something about the combination of "looser building codes" and floating cities seem like a great concept for a reality show.

Who's bringing the popcorn?

>> ^rottenseed:

Dear Haiti,

Seriously, it's 2011. 3rd world country shit ain't cute anymore
Signed,
the rest of the fucking world
PS: yours was only 7.0...nice building code, dicks>> ^Selektaa:
Dear America,
Please STFU.
Love,
Haiti



You do know that the richter scale is logarithmic, right?
The energy yield from a 5.9 is equivalent to ~43 kilo tonnes of tnt, whereas the energy yield from a 7.0 is over half a million tonnes.

Dear Haiti,



Seriously, it's 2011. 3rd world country shit ain't cute anymore

Signed,
the rest of the fucking world

PS: yours was only 7.0...nice building code, dicks>> ^Selektaa:

Dear America,
Please STFU.
Love,
Haiti

Seems similar to one I got a few years ago:

This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US Department of Energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the national weather service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of US Department of Agriculture inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the Food and Drug Administration.

At the appropriate time as regulated by the US congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the US Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build by the local, state, and federal departments of transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issed by the Federal Reserve Bank. On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.

After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to ny house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and fire marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all it's valuables thanks to the local police department.

I then log on to the internet which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration and post on freerepublic.com and fox news forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything right.

Congratulations! Your video, How a garage door meets historic building codes in SF, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 23 Badge!

Your video, How a garage door meets historic building codes in SF, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 22 Badge!

*wtf damn socialists making buildings so fucking expensive with their commie building codes

In fact I think his project fall short for what I would have liked. I would have said 45 miles per gallon by 2015 because cars like the Honda non-hybrid has proven it can be done. So there is not excuse to keep on delaying that situation.

I would also have created a very aggressive insulation and energy efficient building code. Such all the building/houses moving forward have all the key technologies to safe energy, insulation, water, etc. I would also have included solar power for them as mandatory. To help start build the idea of energy decentralization. Which is good for many reasons.

I would also have announce that we are looking into defining a Manhattan project for the USA to help us be energy independent by 2030.

^ They still have to follow building codes like everyone else. It will be just as strong as conventional skyscrapers.

^you only hold that opinion because you grew up in a system which held your hand through your whole life. you really can't think of a way for the free market to solve drivers licenses, building codes, or airline security? you are taking all these restrictions for granted because you've never even considered the alternative of actually making decisions for yourself.

Free market alternative to drivers licenses:
Everyone is free to drive. Private companies spring up which teach drivers safety courses--all of whom are in competition with each other, and thus offer affordable prices to the consumer. Such a company may offer different "levels" of courses, each of which is progressively more rigorous and expensive. At the highest levels one could respond to adverse weather conditions on par with a world rally championship driver. There are no laws mandating drivers education--but for economical reasons--insurance agencies do not offer polices, or offer policies at extremely high premiums to drivers who haven't been certified by a private organization. People with higher levels of certification pay less in insurance--as they are the safest drivers. People with or without insurance who cause an accident are still liable in a civil and criminal court. People are free to opt out of uninsured motorists insurance or insurance altogether, but would then run the risk of facing a hit and run driver, or driver with insufficient resources to pay for damages. Accidents will occur, but they are still punishable by state laws--i.e. you can be fined and put in jail for reckless driving, as in the current environment. The result is a system where people are motivated to receive a high quality, real-world driving education--yet can choose the level of risk they are willing to accept, or their budget allows for.

The argument about a teenager getting in a car and killing someone is not a valid criticism of the free market. In a free market killing someone is still illegal...the only difference is now the teenager only gets one charge: manslaughter--instead of manslaughter and "driving without a license". Manslaughter is the charge with the brunt of the both the consequence, and the relevance--not "driving without a license". Why should you care if it was a 15 year old or a 25 year old who kills your mother due to negligence--the result is the same either way.

In addition, how would someone too young to drive obtain a car in the first place? If they can afford a car, they must have a job, and if they have a job which can pay for a car I would argue they are responsible enough to drive a car. Thus, you don't even need age-based regulation--the free market takes care of that too! Whether you are 15 or 55, if you work for a living you understand the value of the dollar, and you will have clear economic motivation to not crash your car, end up in jail, or have to pay stiff fines. If someone's rich daddy buys them a car and they crash it causing the loss of life or property--guess who's rich daddy is going to get sued in civil court!

Free market alternative to building codes:
There are no longer building safety codes--but private organizations (think IEEE for construction) pop up which come together to vote on standards for safe construction. This already happens in many private industries for reasons in addition to safety. Consumers can choose not to live, work, or conduct business in any building them deem unsafe--so businesses. in the name of profit, will be motivated to publicly display the details of construction--perhaps by puting a plague with the engineers name and his level of accreditation/adherence to publicly available safety standards on the store-front, or hiring private inspectors to valid the safety of the structure. A consumer walking into a building could then, for example, see that the building hasn't been inspected in over 3 years or that it was constructed by a firm with a poor safety record--and choose to take their business elsewhere. Thus, engineers, firms, and inspectors are held publicly responsible for the safety of the buildings they construct--and, perhaps more importantly--companies are motivated to select the most esteemed firms around to construct their building. If a business has a poor safety record or a building failure occurs-the results will most likely make it on the local news--the poor press would likely force the company out of business or pressure it to adopt higher quality construction practices. Firms would be motivated to hire engineers who are certified in safe construction, as the public will only want to live, work, or conduct business in buildings which they feel are safe. Companies who place false safety certifications can be charged with fraud and face stiff fines or jail time.

When is that last time you walked into a building and knew what engineering firm built it, what their safety practices where, or the last time it was inspected for health, fire, or safety violations? With a free market, this information could be available to you with absolutely no laws or regulation--only the sheer motivation of profit.

Free market alternative to airlines/taxis/bus drivers:
People make a choice of which airline, taxicab, or bus to use as their form of transportation. And a business which hires drunk drivers, or utilize shoddy planes which crash frequently, is not going to remain in business long. If I wish to fly with an airline which has an unknown safety record, or even some blemishes--maybe I am willing to pay less, or not pay at all. Profit is a strong motivator, and competition between business will motivate them to offer the safest flights, the most convenient bus routes, or the cheapest taxicab fares.

Which regards to flight training--do hospitals hire doctors with no medical training? Do law firms hire lawyers who haven't been to law school? What makes you think a company is going to profit by hiring untrained employees? An airline which hires people off the street to fly planes, and thus results with a bunch of 10:00 news stories about fiery plane crashes isn't going to be in the airline business for very long--just like the hospital who hires employees from the local McDonalds and subsequently botches the next 25 heart transplants in a row isn't going to be in the medical business after the story hits the local newspaper.


The sheer flexibility, elegance, adaptability, beauty, power, and simplicity of the free market is absolutely stupefying.

>> ^deathcow:
p.s. those campers are made of crappy thin fiberglass/vinyl with a weak square tube aluminum or wooden frame, personally, I think the construction of this drive up patio roof thing looked WAY WAY under-bid and impossible to be adhering to any code!
Glad there wasn't anyone else in the closer drive-through lanes.


*dark *actionpack

Dark from fact that it exposes that US building code enforcement can be as shoddy as that of what causes tragedies in other parts of the world.

Loving the mega-upvoting for ant.

I like the way your tree minded mind thinks! thanks for the links!

In reply to this comment by Linz:
Or maybe something more like this?
http://www.inhabitat.com/2006/08/31/4treehouse-by-lukasz-kos/#more-1079
I like the idea of having it above the ground, maybe suspended. Also a bunch of other cool ideas here:
http://www.inhabitat.com/category/treehouses/

In reply to this comment by Peroxide:
I dream of building my own tree based house, sort of like this one, but perhaps with a center beam that is a living tree, ( i know, i know, the roots would need water...)

http://www.simondale.net/house/

Everything makes perfect sense, except for the building codes that prevent anyone from making their own house.

Or maybe something more like this?
http://www.inhabitat.com/2006/08/31/4treehouse-by-lukasz-kos/#more-1079
I like the idea of having it above the ground, maybe suspended. Also a bunch of other cool ideas here:
http://www.inhabitat.com/category/treehouses/

In reply to this comment by Peroxide:
I dream of building my own tree based house, sort of like this one, but perhaps with a center beam that is a living tree, ( i know, i know, the roots would need water...)

http://www.simondale.net/house/

Everything makes perfect sense, except for the building codes that prevent anyone from making their own house.

I dream of building my own tree based house, sort of like this one, but perhaps with a center beam that is a living tree, ( i know, i know, the roots would need water...)

http://www.simondale.net/house/

Everything makes perfect sense, except for the building codes that prevent anyone from making their own house.

That article in Fire Engineering is dated January 2002. Did you think to look for any more recent writings from this author on the subject? Of course not. How about more recent articles in the magazine on the subject? Nope you didn't do that either. Too much work for someone as intellectually lazy as you appear to be.

http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/article_display.html?id=151045

A more recent article from the same author applauding the commissioning of the NIST investigation. The most extensive cover up the author is worried about is politicians covering their asses over dangerously unsafe building codes (read the following also from Mr.Manning).

http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/article_display.html?id=213202

That is one conspiracy theory that may well be true.

Fire Engineering has also run several articles on it's support of Fire/Structural damage causing the collapse of WTC 1 & 2.

http://downloads.pennnet.com/fe/wtc.pdf

80 pages and not one mention of demolition, explosives or conspiracies.