Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kellan on July 17, 2002, 04:07:38 pm
-
Okay, that's a slightly misleading title because nobody has any plans to rebuild the World Trade Center but they do plan to redevelop the site - and the plans have been published.
You can find a rundown and a poll over there --> http://www.guardian.co.uk/gall/0,8542,756838,00.html
Since this is something we have all talked, argued and sympathised over (or at least some of those) I thought y'all might be interested. :)
-
I dont like those, its sort of giving up by not building something bigger or just as big, almost like letting bin liner win. I want to see them build that new WTC, the one someone posted on Warpstorm, now that was good, it had everything, memorial, memorial trees, biosphere, sound waves that could keep planes away, it was uber modern and super.
-
See WS....err......LW.
-
Warpstorm is back at www.librawars.com. The thing i was talking about was posted before WS disappeared.
-
As i suggested over on LW, no matter what they build, it'll turn into a Starbucks Coffee Shop within about a week.:doubt:
-
http://www.wtc2002.com
-
Originally posted by PhReAk
http://www.wtc2002.com
Thats it! Brilliant building, be so cool if they built it.
-
Bleargh. I liked the idea (probably not in there) of rebuilding the WTC towers so that instead of being two 110-story buildings, each spot would house 110 one-story buildings.
-
I liked the idea (probably not in there) of rebuilding the WTC towers so that instead of being two 110-story buildings, each spot would house 110 one-story buildings.
What would accomplish/stand for?? i like the other idea.
-
'Cos it's a cool idea. Why else?
-
Originally posted by PhReAk
http://www.wtc2002.com
Freaky and utopic. Like a archology. I LIKE IT! :D But that whole airplane repellent sound wave emitter sounds a bit dodgy.
-
Originally posted by Dark_4ce
But that whole airplane repellent sound wave emitter sounds a bit dodgy.
A cannon and adequet baggage check would probably be better.
-
Originally posted by Dark_4ce
But that whole airplane repellent sound wave emitter sounds a bit dodgy.
Please tell me that's taking the piss.. please.
They can't put up a 5 mile no fly zone around manhattan, Le Guadia Airport is just next to it. And how will helicoptors get in and out?
Plus why do they think terrorist would do everything the same if they do it again. They could just as easilly target washington or boston along the coast.
-
I dont like those, its sort of giving up by not building something bigger or just as big, almost like letting bin liner win.
I quite agree there; the enemy relies on encouragement to keep their men working for the cause, and erecting an even more ambitious project than what was already there would really be a blow to their morale.
-
And if they destroyed it again...think of what our moral would be like?
-
They wouldn't live after second time. I see that for sure.
-
They should build something much bigger than the wtc was, and make it a modern engineering miracle of some sort. This should be an opportunity to tell the enemy that nothing will change - they will not win. :nod:
-
I second that, with a vengence! :devilidea
'Cos it's a cool idea. Why else?
oh sorrry, my bad.
-
And if they destroyed it again...think of what our moral would be like?
The chances of that are pretty low (recall the Al Qaeda spokesman's statement: "we will strike where they don't expect it"), and besides, if they had any sense they would probably go for a more important target anyway. (like the Capitol building or White House)
-
Originally posted by an0n
A cannon and adequet baggage check would probably be better.
do you know how hard it is to adequately check baggage these days? I'll go with the cannon anyday
-
Well, I just checked that wtc2002 site, and I say it does look like an ambitious undertaking. Although this 5-mile no fly zone is a bit problematic considering La Guarida's proximity to the site.
I suppose that they could have active, ultrasensitive airspace monitoring tied directly to Air Force Command or something (for helicopter traffic), and a very strictly maintained launch/landing corridor in the no-fly zone so La Guardia can keep her liner traffic coming and going.
And could someone give me a decent theory on this ultrasound shield whateverinthehellthethingis they're proposing, because any soundwave that is potent enough to knock an airplane out of its flight path is going to be more than capable of shattering every window in a hundred miles. Unless they intend on using a focused "beam" of sorts to push it away...
Also, this thing about the central column being the anchor? Baaad mojo there. I think that each tower should be fully capable of handling twice the load of the entire structure in the event of a dire emergency. That way if anything gives, there's an inane amount of redundancy in the system.
Y'know, they do have a feedback form on that site, so if someone has an idea to make things better, I suppose they'll look it over.
-
And could someone give me a decent theory on this ultrasound shield whateverinthehellthethingis they're proposing, because any soundwave that is potent enough to knock an airplane out of its flight path is going to be more than capable of shattering every window in a hundred miles. Unless they intend on using a focused "beam" of sorts to push it away...
Beam... weapon? :D
"Sir, there's a small helicopter too close to the WTC."
"Arm the BFGreen Commander!"
-
Originally posted by PhReAk
do you know how hard it is to adequately check baggage these days? I'll go with the cannon anyday
Sure, you can shoot down any plane that comes within 5 miles. But if you shoot it down it'll crash somewhere else in New York, maybee on a school or something.
Oh but shoot it by all means.
Would you also shoot down the pigeons?
My point is thats crazy, you dont put AAA ontop of every tall building just to shoot down planes which may or may not contain terorists.
-
What's the obsession with something bigger? How is bigger automatically 'better' to people? Economies of scale only work up to a point. Besides, since we're always arguing that a dozen destroyers are better than a Colossus in terms of risk-bearing in FS2, why do you not apply the same principles to building construction?
I suppose the whole world really does conform to the hopeless psychology 101-isms that you say these terrorists are afflicted with: "oh no, they rebuilt it! We are defeated!" and so on.
Really CP, I didn't think that you would be such a victim of subconscious penis extensions. :D
On the subject of the WTC2002, it really is the ugliest building I've seen since I last visited London. And how does rebuilding a structure over the original site honour the dead - especially when it's billions of feet of office space? "An eight wonder for retail" the site proudly proclaims. So we should honour the dead by shopping now? :p Does it matter to the designers that the public want a transport hub to make Manhattan more accessible and the victims' families want the footprint of the towers only to be used as a memorial site?
I agree with Stryke 9 that Manhattan needs affordable housing far more than it needs another shop or office. Surely allowing people to live their lives on the site is more of a memorial than allowing them to shop 'till they drop. Having some public space in the heartland of corporate America would be nice, too.
-
Actually, the reason I would support that is that it will be very good for public morale, which in turn will boost the economy back up. (in addition to demoralizing the enemy) Anyway,I am not one of those who thinks that several Orions are better than the Colossus. And this whole thing about "honoring the dead" is quite ridiculous; as that Vasudan pilot says, "no sorrow but vengeance!" :D
-
Bah, the economy is in too bad a shape for a single, albeit huge project to set it back on track. The dollar is still overvalued, and talking up the war in Iraq isn't doing anything for investor confidence or the future price of oil. Consumers have just caught on so spending is down, too.
-
Kellan: Any housing in the Manhattan area does not qualify as "affordable" by any standard. Any that close to Wall Street and Times Square, doubly so. What they COULD do, tho, if they wanted someting like that, is to let it grow in a bit and turn it into a new Central Park-type area.
But no, no doubt some kinda kitch is gonna get put up anyway. It's what the People seem to want, damn them.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Kellan: Any housing in the Manhattan area does not qualify as "affordable" by any standard. Any that close to Wall Street and Times Square, doubly so.
I'm well aware that this is the case at present; it would be nice to make some though. However, if it was on the open market they'd immediately climb in value, so they'd have to be government controlled. So maybe it wouldn't be such a popular idea... :rolleyes:
I agree that the current memorials seem to be verging towards the tacky. Mind you, if one were particularly scathing it could be said that an even bigger WTC represents a perfectly acceptable monument to a lot of dead bankers, lawyers, auditors and speculators.
That may be a little close to the bone though. :doubt:
-
Yeh, it's funny to realize that before September 11 the WTC was as great a symbol of Amerikan jingoistic, rapacious corporate evil as the Pentagon was a symbol of genocide and criminal slaughtering of non-Amerikans in the Vietnam era. Boy, those propoganda machines do work, don't they? Nobody even remembers how hated the WTC was as a symbol anymore.
ANYWAY. How about a giant dollar bill? Or, if the idea of retaliation is still big, a giant phallus to tick off those ultra-religious terrorists, including the ones on the home front that aren't considered terrorists so much because they're white Christians. We can run an abortion clinic from the top.
Hopefully, nothing to do with 10,000 American flags, which is the most probable one.
-
Stryke 9, your continued existence has renewed my faith in America. :)
-
Ugh, that keeps happening to me. Why can't it do the opposite for once!!??:D
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Ugh, that keeps happening to me. Why can't it do the opposite for once!!??:D
Well okay; my faith in the ability of Americans to question and criticise their own regimes. Is that better? :)
-
Much.;)
I consider it bad manners to advocate the overthrow of any country one is not personally in, so it follows naturally, I guess.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
I consider it bad manners to advocate the overthrow of any country one is not personally in, so it follows naturally, I guess.
I was in America until last Sunday technically, so do I count? :wink:
If not, I can just advocate the overthrow of the British government. I have an excellent plan: if I store enough barrels of gunpowder underneath the Houses of Parliament, I can blow everyone up! Aahahahaaaa!!! *puts pinkie near corner of mouth* :devilidea
-
Time elapsed doesn't matter, in my opinion. Point is, you have to live with the government you want to tear down, and thus know why it has to be taken down. That, and you're not preaching to a buncha people who don't have to live or die by what goes on, and care little about those who do.
Mmm... they might have to add a second name to Guy Fawkes day, then.:D
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Time elapsed doesn't matter, in my opinion. Point is, you have to live with the government you want to tear down, and thus know why it has to be taken down. That, and you're not preaching to a buncha people who don't have to live or die by what goes on, and care little about those who do.
Okay, I was being a bit stupid rather than serious. As you could probably tell. :wink:
-
I know, I know...
-
Originally posted by Kellan
If not, I can just advocate the overthrow of the British government. I have an excellent plan: if I store enough barrels of gunpowder underneath the Houses of Parliament, I can blow everyone up! Aahahahaaaa!!! *puts pinkie near corner of mouth* :devilidea
That doesnt seem quite right. Some guy (ie Guy Fawkes, get it?) tries to blow up the Houses of Parliment. Sure, he got executed for it... but then he got a yearly festival named after him still celebrated to this day.
How does that work? :confused:
-
They don't like Parlaiment all that much, either?
-
Nah we all just hate that slimey tit Tony Blair.
-
Originally posted by Mr Carrot
Nah we all just hate that slimey tit Tony Blair.
Hey, it's better than having Ian and Duncan Smith as our Prime Minister(s). But not as good as that cheeky chappie Charles Kennedy. :)
(Sorry to all non-Brits here for making these quite Anglocentric comments, which probably make no sense to you at all).
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Actually, the reason I would support that is that it will be very good for public morale, which in turn will boost the economy back up. (in addition to demoralizing the enemy) Anyway,I am not one of those who thinks that several Orions are better than the Colossus. And this whole thing about "honoring the dead" is quite ridiculous; as that Vasudan pilot says, "no sorrow but vengeance!" :D
agreed! one colossus are better than several orions in framerate too :D
-
Originally posted by Stealth
agreed! one colossus are better than several orions in framerate too :D
Schmeh...but the risk-bearing economies of scale... :nod:
-
Fear economics jingoism, ah but you could see with managment economies of scale you would be more likely to reach pareto effeciency with a collosus frame.
IDSmith roxors! (any ex-serviceman gets my vote)
-
Originally posted by Mr Carrot
Fear economics jingoism, ah but you could see with managment economies of scale you would be more likely to reach pareto effeciency with a collosus frame.
Yes, but it's much harder to achieve managerial economies of scale these days because of improved communications methods. Anyone can talk to anyone else pretty much instantly today, so it's not like there will be information loss between them, or waiting on the opinions of others.
IDSmith roxors! (any ex-serviceman gets my vote) [/B]
Hah, that's a funny joke. Seriously, you're kidding, right? :nervous:
Ian Duncan Smith is a buffoon!! :) He keeps his party together by having no policy whatsoever (not even of opposition to the government, which is at present a joke). In fact, he registers even less on the "are you doing *anything*-meter" than his predecessor.
-
Well from me chats with numerous conservative MPs the party is pretty much paralysed due to "New Labour" nicking all its policies.
-
Originally posted by Mr Carrot
Well from me chats with numerous conservative MPs the party is pretty much paralysed due to "New Labour" nicking all its policies.
I'd be the first to agree that New Labour is hardly liberal of social in its legislation these days, but that's a poor excuse. What, are the Conservatives letting Labour representatives sit in on their meetings so that they can steal Conservative ideas from the source?
The simple fact is that the Conservatives are mainly elected to maintain the status quo by older people, or for their stewardship of the economy. Black Wednesday and the recession broke the economy spell, and Gordon Brown's good management (or good fortune) has helped to make Labour seem the natural choice for the economy. As for maintaining the status quo, there's not really much to maintain. It really is reform or bust - of the disconnected political processess, decaying public services and overloaded criminal justice system.
It also doesn't help IDS that he makes patently ridiculous claims that he will increase spending on public services over Labour targets without raising targets and whilst also defending traditional Conservative areas that have seen deep cuts, such as defence. :p
-
hmmmm..... i think theres always room for reform backwards, instead of trying to engineer perfect working enviroments and cover every eventuality via paper work. I feel that even though this leads to certain negative aspects slipping through the system, 10 odd years of keeping institutions desk bound has done little of removing institutionalised racism.
I think the Conservatives base of removing poltical correctness and pointless beurocracy to the extent of allowing people an easier working day. It will also save BILLIONS in middle managment, thats where they will get the money from.
You can argue back and forth this topic ad nausiem because theres no way of telling if it will work unless Conservatives win the next election. However i will vote for them for the main reason that appeals to all young men, and something that labour promised but never did, Changing licensing laws so all pubs can stay open to 1 and can apply for permits to stay open till 4.
-
Oh also, i think its a farce the way people completely ignore thatchers monetarism that firmly put Britain back on the leading economic power block, without it there would be no current economic prosperity. The only thing Labour did to help it was put monetary policy control in the hands of the Bank of England.
-
Originally posted by Mr Carrot
thatchers
AIEEEEE!!!!![/i] :shaking: :nervous: :eek2: :shaking:
monetarism[/B]
AIEEEEE!!!!![/i] :shaking: :nervous: :eek2: :shaking:
I'm just going to shut my eyes and hope that this all goes away. The thing that I think is funny, after all is that it was Thatcher who failed to invest in the railways for 20 years. Just remember that next time you sigh at the state of the railways.