It's time for another OP about... FLOATING CITIES MADE BY ROBOTS

[txlibdem]

The ice caps are melting even faster than they were last year I hear.

The sea has risen so high recently that the nation of Tuvalu (home to 11,000 people) now has no fresh water due to sea water contaminating their aquifers. http://www.salient-news.com/2011/10/south-pacific-islands-face-severe-water-shortage/

A report by the United Nations University’s Institute for Environment and Human Security and the German Alliance Development Works said the top 10 countries facing the highest risk are: Vanuatu, Tonga, the Philippines, the Solomon Islands, Guatemala, Bangladesh, Timor-Leste, Costa Rica, Cambodia and El Salvador.

The risk index used in the report analyzed each country’s exposure to natural disasters like storms, floods, earthquakes, droughts and sea level rise.

It also estimated their susceptibility to damage based on the state of their economy and infrastructure, and the countries’ ability to respond to these disasters through preparedness measures and early warning systems. It also studied their ability to adapt to future disasters due to climate change.

http://globalnation.inquirer.net/14987/philippines-ranks-third-on-climate-change-vulnerability-list

The combined population of these nations is in the hundreds of millions.

You also have to add the city of Bankok, with 12 million inhabitants, because it is only 2 meters above sea level. Can these people survive years of drought followed by years of floods with the occasional earthquake thrown in for good measure??? And then there is sea level rise to consider.

-------------------------------------

One solution is to build floating cities that would house 50,000 residents. Bridges and rail lines could connect these cities to the mainland (or that which remains after sea levels rise).

A visionary French architect, Vincent Callebaut, has designed an elegant eco-haven for these climate refugees. His prediction was that we would need these cities by 2100... I'm not so sure we can wait that long.

Please see the Architect's renderings of this eco-polis meant to be not just above the floods but also inspiring to the soul. IMO these cities would be beautiful. The city will recycle all waste products, generate all of its energy from renewable sources and possibly have surplus to sell to the mainland.



http://vincent.callebaut.org/page1-img-lilypad.html

My belief is that the cost of construction can be cut drastically by using robotic submarines and autonomous robots to do as much of the construction as possible. The subs would be tethered to a ship and would be controlled by a person somewhere else in the world, they would be outfitted with welding and grasping arms, and would have enough intelligence built in so that they do not get their lines tangled or run into another sub or robot.

As is the case with US Air Force drones that are remotely piloted from somewhere in the US but fly in Afghan air space (or wherever), these subs could be controlled from anywhere. I could imagine a contest being held to win a chance to build part of the floating city.

Since it would be built underwater the equipment needn't be as strong, especially if air pockets are integrated into the beams and other structural parts: they would be a little buoyant and a giant crane would not be needed to manipulate and weld them in place.

There may be other ways of construction that I haven't even thought of such as creating a scaffolding that naturally attracts the chemicals found in sea water in such a way that the structure would build itself (somewhat like the tissue scaffolding that scientists recently discovered that will grow a human bladder when kept in a proper solution).

Note: these cities are not escape vehicles for the wealthy as depicted in the movie 2012. They were envisioned by the architect to house the poor and others whose homes will one day become unlivable due to climate change.

[KamaAina]

1. I had always thought of having them built in a shipyard and towed out to sea

and anchored either: a) in someplace like San Francisco Bay or Boston Harbor where more housing is needed; or b) offshore outside the 200-mile "Exclusive Economic Zone" (thanks, Reagan! :sarcasm: ) limit, much like what those libertarians are trying to do, but more sustainable.

[txlibdem]

3. It doesn't look like it from the renderings at the Architect's website - please read his site

And these are definitely NOT libertarian escape rafts. The designer clearly stated (in both English and French) that they are for climate refugees.

That said, there is no reason that New Yorkers might want to build a few of these (IIRC Long Island is only a meter above sea level now... what's it going to be in 2050 or 2100).

I don't know about San Francisco or Boston. Have you heard anything about their plans? PS, that may be one of the reasons that BushCo was never in any hurry to rebuild New Orleans (I'm sorry if that makes Bush and Cheney sound like cold, calculating, callous, evil men... :sarcasm:).

[KamaAina]

11. True, but there's no reason the design couldn't be adapted for land shortage refugees

Buckminster Fuller stated this in his floating city plans from the '60s: "Floating cities pay no rent to landlords..." He briefly had people interested in one in Baltimore's Inner Harbor... my home town... (sighhhh).

[txlibdem]

12. The shape is completely open for modification

I think the Architect wanted to have plenty of boat access, a swimming pool in the center, plenty of green and still have room for the solar panels and wind turbines.

Actually, docking fees are quite high for house boats. Do you mean a free-floating city with no bridge or railway connection to land? If so then you are absolutely right: just factor in two or three boats to take people to and from shore (presuming they need to have jobs).

Do you have any info on Dr. Fuller's designs? As an aside, I am rather interested in The Venus Project as well.http://www.thevenusproject.com/

[KamaAina]

15. Here you go

http://bubuiainstitute.wordpress.com/2010/10/19/buckminster-fuller-triton-floating-city/

http://www.cjfearnley.com/fuller-faq-5.html#ss5.6

[txlibdem]

17. Thanks for the info

I bet you could get more people into Bucky's floating city than the LilyPad one but damn it's ugly (sorry). I'd rather live in the one with all the grass, trees and the swimming pools.

PS, a good portion of the green space in the LilyPad floating city is for waste water reclamation (grey water, not toilets or garbage disposals - those go to the treatment plant to be turned into methane). The other two green areas are for food.
Ref: greywater
https://www.thenaturalhome.com/greywater.html
http://greywater.sustainablesources.com/

My greatest concern in writing this OP was how to get the costs down. That's why I mentioned that it could be built by autonomous robots and telepresence controlled construction robots. And / or a matrix could be printed on a series of very large 3d printers (they have ones large enough to print a house so I don't see why not) then the matrix would be submerged and the material of the matrix would naturally attract metal ions from the seawater. In essence, the city would grow itself after the scaffolding was lowered into the sea.

[txlibdem]

9. Oh, I forgot to mention that this city is 1/3rd mile in diameter

That'd be a BIG shipyard!!!

:-)

[KamaAina]

10. It could either be built in chunks and reassembled, or scaled down

a third of a mile across wouldn't fit in any of our harbors!

[txlibdem]

13. The hull design does (sort of) have 3 segments that might be able to be attached later

That's still 1/3rd mile long but only 1/9th of a mile, that being 5280 ft, div. by 9 we get 587 feet wide. That may be doable...

[txlibdem]

28. Sorry for the botched math folks

Kids, don't medicate and then do math. Take if from me, it makes you look and feel silly.

I should have involved Pi in there somewhere but it's too early for my neurons to fire that well. If someone would like to take a stab at the math: how large would 1/3 of a 1/3 mile structure be.

[bananas]

2. Keith Olberman, Thom Hartmann, and The Young Turks on Seasteading

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x308392

[txlibdem]

4. This is NOT (I repeat... NOT) seasteading. Please read the last para of the OP

And then go read the Architect's site (choose either French or English, whichever you want)

These cities are for the victims of the libertarians/Corporatists, not for the fat cats. They don't need a floating city: they have a villa atop a 400 foot cliff in one of the exclusive rich-rich-rich parts of the world.

[bananas]

5. Patri Friedman, Peter Thiel

http://spitfirelist.com/for-the-record/ftr-744-the-shap... /

FTR #744 The Shape of Things to Come
Posted by Dave Emory ⋅ June 13, 2011

Introduction: Viewing the future through a glass, darkly, this program looks at extreme measures being proposed (and actualized) to deal with dire eco­nomic and social dislocation. Some of these measures are gambits sought by the privileged, in order to gain distance from the chaos that their policies gen­erate. Some are proposed in order to impose anti-democratic ways and means on those affected by economic and social deterioration.

Before diving into the seastedding movement and the political philosophy (and philosophers) underlying that phenomenon, the program highlights an essential statement by Patri Friedman, grandson of right-wing economic theo­retician Milton Friedman. In this defining presentation, Friedman distills the fun­damentals of the seastedding movement–a “corporate state”–precisely how Mussolini defined his fascist system.

An Alternet post sets forth details and substance about the movement and, in particular, the formidable, far-right wing entrepreneur Peter Thiel, a driving force behind Silicon Valley commerce and culture. (Thiel, one of the seastedding movement’s backers is discussed at length in FTR #718.) Epitomized ideologi­cally by his view that the United States began going downhill when we allowed women to vote, Thiel has used the powerful Koch brothers’ political and media apparatus to publicize their view that “democracy and freedom are incompatible.”

<snip>

http://spitfirelist.com/for-the-record/news/somewhere-b... /

“Somewhere . . . Beyond the Sea . . . ” (Apologies to Bobby Darin)
Posted by Dave Emory ⋅ January 9, 2011

COMMENT: Some very scary peo­ple, including extreme right-wingers associated with Face­book, as well as Carlyle Group alumni, have been backing the con­cept of establishing enormous, floating “Utopia” liners as seago­ing living and recreational enclaves for the ultra-rich.

Profiled in FTR #718, Facebook financial backer Peter Thiel is a major backer of this undertaking. Along with associates, Thiel has been overt about his opposition to democracy, seeing it as precluding freedom.

Possessing a quasi medieval perspective, Thiel believes that allowing women to vote was decisive in the disintegra­tion of society.

Financed by Thiel, the Seasteading Institute is headed by Milton Friedman’s son Patri Friedman.

In numerous broadcasts, we have visited with Lucy Komisar, who has extensively researched corporate use of off­shore transactions to skirt domestic laws.

The Seasteading Institute is REALLY offshore!

<snip>

[Confusious]

18. I think you should stop using English because

republicans want to make it the national language. Same sort of thought.

A stopped clock is right twice a day. Just because most of their ideas are stupid doesn't mean they all are.

You start rejecting ideas because someone you don't like likes them, you become a republican.

[txlibdem]

19. My OP has nothing to do with his strawman argument

All you have to do is go to the link at the bottom of my OP and you will see that there is NO mention of "seastedding" (sic) nor "seasteading" anywhere. What you *will* find is a beautifully designed eco-friendly floating city designed for the millions who will lose their land due to global climate change and sea level rise.

Then read his post: seastedding this and seasteading that. Oh, it's appalling...

Reading is FUNdamental and I think the poster just needs to learn the difference in intent between two otherwise similar items.

Here is a quote from the Architect of the LilyPad Floating City: http://vincent.callebaut.org/page1-img-lilypad.html
"LILYPAD, A PROTOTYPE OF AUTO-SUFFICIENT AMPHIBIOUS CITY

"Whereas the Netherlands and the United Arabic Emirates « fatten » their beach with billion of euros to build their short-living polders and their protective dams for a decade, the project «Lilypad» deals with a tenable solution to the water rising! Actually, facing the worldwide ecological crisis, this floating Ecopolis has the double objective not only to widen sustainabely in offshore the territories of the most developed countries such as the Monaco principality but above all to grant the housing of future climatic refugees of the next submerged ultra-marine territories such as the Polynesian atolls."

I invite you to go to the Architect's site and search for the word seasteading or seastedding. You will not find it.

I have complained to the MODs about 3 posts this same individual has made here and they only deleted one of them. So I guess I found a loophole for how to harass and twist someone's OP: all you have to do is post the same thing 3 different times! The mods will only delete one so your slander will still remain in two posts.

[bananas]

6. Some other threads...

Silicon Valley billionaire funding creation of artificial libertarian islands
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1752884

Sea going Libertarians. . (Milton Freidman's grandson's Grand Design)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5741435

Libertarians Set to Launch a (Wet) Dream of 'Freedom' in International Waters
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5744755

How to get rid of Libertarians: Support Seasteading!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6029044

[obxhead]

7. It's a pipe dream.

"The city will recycle all waste products, generate all of its energy from renewable sources and possibly have surplus to sell to the mainland."

We're not even close to that idea on land right now where it would be 1000's of times cheaper to build and implement.

By the time this concept is realistic human populations will have likely been killed off by as much as 95%.

[txlibdem]

8. Sorry to be blunt but that's a cop out

I can replace my toilets with composting toilets today and get a plumber to put in a grey-water system to water the shrubs and lawn from my sinks and shower/tub. Then if I put enough solar panels on my roof and a wind turbine in the back yard I'd be recycling 100% of my waste products and generating all of my energy. I can buy a Nissan Leaf or other electric vehicle and never use an ounce of outside energy. I don't agree with your skepticism about being able to do this in 2050 when these cities might be needed (2100 is the target date the Architect planned for).

On an industrial scale such as a structure with 50,000 people in it, all human waste can be turned to biogas and the CO2 used to grow plants or bacteria (for more biogas). Many cities are looking into this process for their sewer systems. http://www.alternativeenergynewswire.com/getting-grease-out-of-sewer-into-biodiesel

[obxhead]

14. Yet I bet you have done little of that.

That's the crux of my argument.

It's not that we can't do it.

We won't do it on land where it would be 1000's of times cheaper than on a floating island.

Why make a target goal of efficient floating islands in 2050, 2100, or 3100. Make realistic goals of land based efficient cities. You know, the place we live now.

Like I said, it's a complete pipe dream. If we won't do it on land, what makes you think there will be the drive and money to do it on water?

[txlibdem]

16. You're missing the point: sea level rise will remove the land where 250 million now live

They have to live somewhere. You choose. Should they go to crowded slums full of pestilence and disease, or lash together as many plastic bottles as they can find and try to stay on their own area?

I mentioned that 12 million people live in Bankok alone. Do you want to host another 12 million people who would need housing, jobs, health care and education for their kids? How about another 250 million? If not then you should be behind the floating cities idea instead of picking nits.

PS, we won't do it on land because the laws to protect the environment are never enforced and are far too lax to begin with. Did you even read the link or do any google research about all the cities who are turning their sewage treatment plants into energy producers and fertilizer manufacturing plants?!? Cities are doing that without a mandate.

I used the example of how I could become 100% self sufficient and 100% waste recycling right now, TODAY. You chose to ignore the facts and make assumptions about my lifestyle that you know nothing about. The crux of your crux is that it's crusty, crunched, crumbled and incorrect.

[Nederland]

20. So what?

So 250 million people will see the places where they current live slowly get flooded over the course of the next 100 years. So what? According to the International Organization for Migration's World Migration Report 2010, the number of international migrants in 2010 alone was estimated at 214 million (http://www.iom.int/jahia/jsp/index.jsp). Simply put, 250 million people moving over the course of 100 years doesn't even rise above the level of noise.

[txlibdem]

24. There is already violence and strife in parts of Europe and Africa over climate refugees

PS, the number I quoted is a low, low ball figure. It may reach up to a billion people if you include families whose livelihoods and homes are destroyed by freakish weather patterns.

There will be violence, riots, bigotry, NIMBY syndrome, and possibly worse.

By 2100, Texas is supposed to have summer high temps in the 120s F. That is killing weather and could cause an exodus out of Texas. Then you start talking about droughts that last a decade followed by flooding that lasts a decade, etc., as outlined in the OP... bad news for us here.

[Nederland]

25. Even a billion is trivial

If 200+ million are already moving every year, one billion spread out over 100 years is still only 5%. The bottom line is that a significant percent of the human population has always been force to move for one reason or another--war, famine, economics. Yes, climate change in theory will make some of those things worse, but it is simple not going to happen fast enough to make a big change in percentage terms. The real big cause is war. Even a small regional war can result in 10 million people being forced to move in a matter of months. That represents a level of upheaval that the slow rise of an ocean will simply never match.

[txlibdem]

26. All that means is that we have TIME to prepare

Your posts have overlooked one vital fact: the amount of available land for those "human populations" to migrate to will be greatly diminished. Water and many other resources are "scarce" and the migration of large numbers of people will put too much strain on already stretched resources. Tension will be inevitable.

I like how you don't call them people. They aren't husbands and wives, sons and daughters. They're "human populations" that we "real people" in the west don't have to worry about. They'll just be pushed from one region to another and all will carry on as it has for decades. How wrong you are, with the exception that if we do nothing to head off the tension and strife, it will erupt into a regional war that, I agree, will cause loss of life on a massive scale. People's lives will be lost. Mothers will mourn the loss of their son or sons. Fathers will return with missing limbs.

Why would you want to fail to avoid that tragic outcome?

[Nederland]

32. Do some math before posting please

Your posts have overlooked one vital fact: the amount of available land for those "human populations" to migrate to will be greatly diminished.

Really? I'd love to see the calculation of just how much land area will be lost as a percentage of current land area. Based on your post, I expect you'll be surprised. More importantly, land for cities is not exactly scarce. Cities take up less than 2% of the world's total land area, so even doubling that number leaves plenty of land to spare (land for agriculture is another matter of course...)

Also, I don't deny that forced migration is a tragic event for people. What I deny is that there will be a lot more of it in the future as a result of climate change--your own (inflated) numbers confirm that.

[txlibdem]

34. Do your own homework please

It's not about number of acres lost, the dilemma is how many millions of people will be displaced.

[txlibdem]

29. TreeHugger - See For Yourself: Interactive Sea Level Rise Explorer

I'm not going to count the number of millions of Americans that will be displaced by sea level rise. I'll let you work your math chops on that... the thunderstorm that passed through at 3am woke me and I'm going to pay for it for the rest of the day.

See For Yourself: Interactive Sea Level Rise Explorer
by Michael Graham Richard, Ottawa, Canada on 04.14.08

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/04/map-sea-level-rise-global-warming-climate.php

See also: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Special:SeaLevel

Texas will lose over 5,000 square kilometers if the sea level rises by 1.5 meters. The nation, 57,000 square kilometers lost - a lot of that is population centers.
http://epa.gov/climatechange/effects/coastal/slrmaps_vulnerable.html

[Nederland]

33. Again, so what?

Right now millions of Americans pick up and move every year. If 20 or 30 million (a high estimate) of them have to move over the course of 100 years as a result of climate change, that addition will not even show up as a blip in the data.

[txlibdem]

36. Their old home does not disappear beneath the waves now does it?

So what? That's what.

:wtf:

[txlibdem]

38. Expanding on my other comment a bit

People move around but the number of housing units grows only at a much slower pace (just to accommodate the increased population). So you move from town A to town B and I move from town B to town A, and most of the moves are just shuffling occupants around.

The only way your example of moving would be close to accurate is if the buildings were dynamited after someone moved out of it. But that "aint" the way it happens.

Do you see my point as to why sea level rise is such a tragedy for the people affected?

[obxhead]

21. Yes, I understand the displaced areas

by rising waters.

I also understand that some areas are actually implementing various methods of greener technology.

You really believe we will build floating islands that hold thousands of people displaced by water? Then we will build them using self sufficient means?

Ha, I would LOVE some of whatever you're smoking.

There will still be plenty of land that can be built vertically at 1/1000th of the cost of floating island cities. You might as well say we're moving to the moon.

Edit to add:

I wasn't trying to attack you on your personal green tech installation. Obviously you're more committed to its idea than most, but even you are only capable of so much based on many factors, money most likely being the largest of them. I'm guessing you would be more likely to spare the expense however than the corporations that would be the builders of these islands.

It really does come down to cost. The money involved in developing such a project would make it impossible for all but the top .0001% of the population much less the people that will be displaced by these rising waters.

[txlibdem]

22. You make some good points

I had in mind that the UN would build a coalition of nations that would pay for the construction of these floating cities. The refugees would be able to live there free of cost. The logic there is that the rich nations profited mightily from polluting the Earth and paid none of the costs all this time; it will one day be their time to help pay the costs of their reckless behavior. I personally believe it's only fair that a gasoline tax and a tax on products made from petroleum be the vehicle by which those costs are paid. Of course, the use of coal would have long ago been outlawed so that cannot be part of the revenue stream for the fund.

Also, I think you are underestimating the cost savings of building under the sea versus building sections in shipyards. If a research vessel can support 10 or more remotely piloted construction subs plus a similar number of autonomous robot subs at the sea floor it can be done a lot cheaper. The cost of stainless steel or anodizing the steel or aluminum structural members and the "skin" would be a serious cost but not as expensive nor as challenging an engineering task as building a skyscraper.

Secondly, there is a possibility that a suitable shape in the form of a matrix - printed by 3d printers by the way - that would only bind with the metal it needs to bind with... there is a possibility of using biomimetics and biomineralization to build the basic structure and float it up to the surface so that windows, plants, solar panels, wind turbines, etc., can be installed where needed. If this method could be perfected then only time and the finish crews would be needed.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/biomineralization
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/biomimetics

[Nederland]

23. The high cost is the issue

I think you are underestimating the cost savings of building under the sea versus building sections in shipyards.

I don't think the proper comparison is building under the sea versus building sections in shipyards, I think it is building land based cities versus floating cities. Any savings gained by building using robots is applicable to each, so I don't understand how you can ever hope to make building something that floats cheaper than something that sits on land. As far as I can tell, the only attraction of floating cities is the fact that they could be placed in international waters and therefore claim to be a new independent country...

[txlibdem]

27. You aren't adding up the cost of foundations tied to bedrock, earthquake protection, etc.

I did not mention the cost of building roads and passenger and freight rail to these new cities you propose because the floating cities I write about will also need those so the comparison in cost is a wash. But you must add the cost of sewers (or the cost of public health crises).

Building a skyscraper requires a huge crane that can only operate when there is practically zero wind, heavy equipment to tug and tow the various building elements into place. I could go on but in a nutshell, gravity is NOT your friend if you are trying to build a skyscraper. And the foundation has to be tied into bedrock in dozens of places.


Compare that with building under the sea. A 1000 pound beam can be lightened by tying it to flotation devices (bags of air). Then a 10 foot long mini sub can grasp it, position it and weld it in place and then release the flotation. Done and done. No weather woes except if the control ship is in the path of a storm.

And the alternate design using natural processes to aggregate the needed material around a matrix would be "free" construction. I put the "free" in quotes because the matrix has to be precisely engineered with CAD software and then printed with 3d printers. That would be the biggest expense: it would have to be printed in sections because the largest 3d printer in existence can only build a 2000 square foot house. Then a barge would pull it to its proper position, a much smaller crane would lower it into place to be attached to the structure: smaller crane because the matrix is mostly air and is probably not made from metal.

PS, the freedom to declare yourself a sovereign, independent nation is every region's right. South Sudan comes to mind. No? (Yes, I am familiar with failed wars of independence such as the one that the confederacy lost -- different times, different attitudes).

[Nederland]

31. Lots of words in that post, but no links to support them

If you can come up with a per square foot cost for building as you described, you can compare it to this:

http://evstudio.info/price-per-square-foot-construction-cost-for-multi-story-office-buildings/

This is a link describing the cost to build various types of buildings in various places in the country. For example, it costs $175 a square foot to build a 2-4 story building in Portland, but only $152 a square foot to build a 11-20 story building there. The site explains why the costs go down as the height of the building goes up. Location makes a huge difference in costs. I picked Portland because it was in the middle, but same buildings in NYC costs $230 and $200 per square foot, and in Winston-Salem $133 and $115.

So provide a link describing just how much your type of building costs per square foot to build and we can compare.

On edit: After a bit a searching I found this: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/carl.ross/underwater-hotel.htm

It describes plans for an underwater hotel with estimated construction costs of $1800 per square foot--or 6 times as expensive as building in pricey New York City.

[txlibdem]

35. $1800 per square foot? That's an amazing number (that has zero relevance to this OP)

Apples and oranges, anyone? Do those buildings generate 100% of their power needs? Do they recycle 100% of their waste? Do they grow all the food that the residents of said buildings will need? No. No. And, NO. Not comparable. Do they have access to 3 marinas? Do they have a swimming pool? Do they have a park right out the front door of all of the units? No. No. And, NO. Again NOT comparable.

PS, you are demanding a documented price for a construction method that hasn't yet been attempted. No wonder the only thing you found was some outrageous figure.

There are ways to infer and project but the margin for error could be up to 50%. So why even bother. When JFK said "Let's put a man on the moon and return him safely to Earth," he didn't whisper to the nearest aid to get him an exact dollar figure for the endeavor. He said this is the right thing to do and we're going to do it. The benefits of the moon shot, of course, turned out to be many thousands of times the cost. So, too, would it be with building the LilyPad (or similar) city using remotely controlled robots or a natural process as described in the OP.

The oil companies and the coal companies caused the problem for us all. They will be the ones to pay the price of it.

[Nederland]

39. LOL

PS, you are demanding a documented price for a construction method that hasn't yet been attempted. No wonder the only thing you found was some outrageous figure.

And what exactly are you doing? If you have a link to construction costs that are different, go ahead and post it.

[NickB79]

30. Someone's been playing Brink on their Xbox a little too long. nt

[txlibdem]

37. Is that what Brink is about? I want to get it so badly.

Yes, I used to be an Xbox, then and Xbox 360 addict (every night after work, every time the wife went out shopping and it was my day off), etc. But my disability prevents me from being able to do that anymore.

On my wish list (no cash so it aint happening now) is the new model and the Xbox Kinect. I should be able to play many of the games that are Kinect compatible... like Forza 4.