Shocking ! (12 Viewers)

[Enron]

I believe it's French engineers who are really bad. Your generalization would almost surely offend the Germans.

In truth engineers while very good at what they do are by nature very one dimensional and single track thinkers. Their nature is to blow things up and build. Very few of the engineers I've met think beyond the ground breaking of whatever it is they are working on. I've come to this conclusion after attending several Civil Engineering Guild meetings and having to point out several times "No you can't build a damn here to fill this valley with a reservoir". "Why not"? "Because there are two towns and a Coast Guard facility in that valley". "Oh".

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Enron]

Sigh. Fine. Brand new structures are actually more likely to fall down. Why? Because even though everything has been tried and tested, it's still not the real thing. So when something is new IMO that's quite different from a bridge used every single day for years. When speaking about the bridge, it is clear that they should have known what was wrong and why it collapsed, as they also had the practical knowledge. Name me four other tragedies and name me one tragedy the size of Katrina, braniac.

What are the odds of becoming an engineer if you're from a backward neighbourhood, if you have poor parents and if you are forced to go to public schools?

Well about half of my high school soccer buddies became some sort of engineer.

 

[Kaiser Franco]

Actually you and Andy started talking about social mobility. I also never said there was much social mobility in Italy. I said there was much in Belgium. And in Belgium, as you know, we have a quite big muslim population. I wouldn't say they're always that well integrated, however most of them do have jobs and they all went to school.

Also, England has reached a World Cup final in my lifetime.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

Also, England has reached a World Cup final in my lifetime.

ha! how you been good friend?

 

[Bjerknes]

The point I was making is that we're better at preventing tragedies. It's insane to build wooden houses in an area such as New Orleans, yet it still happened. Now compare that to what the Dutch did.

Don't give me the mother nature shit. Some things are too hard to handle. Katrina wasn't.

Well then you know fuckall about natural disasters.

Like I said, you're saying you're better at preparing for something that doesn't happen in Europe! Don't be a fool.

 

[ßöмßäяðîëя]

What houses in the world aren't made out of wood?

The ones made out of concrete, steel, and glass?

Where do they build strictly concrete houses? Or only steel houses?

And Seven needs to stop living in his glass house...

 

[swag]

But that's the thing, swag. You do live that well in Belgium. And trust me, I'm not particularly proud of my country, I think the weather sucks and lots of Flemish can be a bit narrowminded when it comes to linguistic issues. But when it comes to stuff such as infrastructure, health care, education and job opportunities, Belgium really is that great. So yeah, from that point of view Belgium is superior. The fact you assume it's overcompensation tells me that you don't believe you could have all that, while it's pretty clear you can.

There is quite little evidence to the contrary I'm afraid .

Yes, enjoy your utopia. I will put in a good word for you with Fearless Leader Mr. Leterme so you can earn your propaganda merit badge and hold hands with your compatriots and sing about how nothing bad ever happens in your perfect world -- unlike those monstrously inferior societies overseas. Hey, that kind of head-in-the-sand belief system worked for Khrushchev during the cold war.

You're obviously an intelligent person -- albeit naive, a victim of your own hubris, and sometimes belligerent. Maybe those latter qualities will change as you get older and see and experience more of the world, but I'm not going to wait on that.

Thank you for wasting my time.

 

[.zero]

this thread has spun severely out of control. but then again it would be normal if it didn't

 

[Enron]

Well then you know fuckall about natural disasters.

Like I said, you're saying you're better at preparing for something that doesn't happen in Europe! Don't be a fool.

We in regards to Katrina, Seven does have a point. Several low lying European nations have taken precautions against rising tides and severe storm systems regardless of the likelihood of a massive event. While here in the US where we experience large storms systems and natural disasters on a yearly basis, yet we do not take any precautions to prevent tragedies such as Katrina.

 

[Bjerknes]

He thinks Europe could deal with a Category Five Hurricane striking London, Coruna, or Den Haag. Oh man, if that was actually possible (and might be possible in the future) he's going to look really foolish. Low-lying cities in Europe would be destroyed a la New Orleans.

 

[.zero]

too bad europe isn't infested with crack heads a-la n.o.

you should have come to houston after katrina and check out the crime rate sky rocket for the 3 years following

 

[ßöмßäяðîëя]

Yes, enjoy your utopia. I will put in a good word for you with Fearless Leader Mr. Leterme so you can earn your propaganda merit badge and hold hands with your compatriots and sing about how nothing bad ever happens in your perfect world -- unlike those monstrously inferior societies overseas. Hey, that kind of head-in-the-sand belief system worked for Khrushchev during the cold war.

You're obviously an intelligent person -- albeit naive, a victim of your own hubris, and sometimes belligerent. Maybe those latter qualities will change as you get older and see and experience more of the world, but I'm not going to wait on that.

Thank you for wasting my time.

Ownage...

He thinks Europe could deal with a Category Five Hurricane striking London, Coruna, or Den Haag. Oh man, if that was actually possible (and might be possible in the future) he's going to look really foolish. Low-lying cities in Europe would be destroyed a la New Orleans.

That would be kind of cool.

 

[Bjerknes]

We in regards to Katrina, Seven does have a point. Several low lying European nations have taken precautions against rising tides and severe storm systems regardless of the likelihood of a massive event. While here in the US where we experience large storms systems and natural disasters on a yearly basis, yet we do not take any precautions to prevent tragedies such as Katrina.

Well yeah, I know the Netherlands has that dam system to protect their ports against European wind storms, but those dams wouldn't protect against a Cat 5 hurricane. And these damns are located only in the North Sea. Cities such as Coruna, London, Porto, Lisbon, Bilbao, Cardiff, etc don't have much protection as far as I know, they are just as susceptible as New Orleans.

And while places such as Holland have damns, they might not have the capability to provide a "good" response after Cat 5 wind damage and worst of all the potential flooding due to the rain.

Building dams is one thing, but being prepared for a response is another. Andries cannot judge here because no Katrina has ever hit Europe.

 

[Bjerknes]

This is just typical European snobbage. Just like when that European writer wrote in the wake of Katrina that the US is the most uncivilized nation on earth, we will always have to deal with somebody making absurd statements and notions that can be easily dispelled with a little knowledge of history and science.

 

[swag]

We in regards to Katrina, Seven does have a point. Several low lying European nations have taken precautions against rising tides and severe storm systems regardless of the likelihood of a massive event. While here in the US where we experience large storms systems and natural disasters on a yearly basis, yet we do not take any precautions to prevent tragedies such as Katrina.

Katrina was classic America at its worst. It's a tendency to focus on the areas you can't afford to ignore while ignoring the rest. That happens a lot. Louisiana and Mississippi, for example, are hardly just neglected in terms of natural disasters and prevention.

Check out how they rank in a lot of things, according to the U.S. Census:

#1 & #2 in unemployment rate:
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/ranks/rank25.htm

#1 & #2 in percent of people below the poverty level:
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/ranks/rank34.htm

#47 & #50 in median household income:
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/ranks/rank33.htm

#1 & #3 in infant mortality rates:
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/ranks/rank17.htm

#44 & #47 in percentage with a college degree:
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/ranks/rank19.htm

#1 and #9 in traffic fatality rates:
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/ranks/rank39.htm

and, by another survey, #44 and #48 in terms of education:
http://www.morganquitno.com/edrank.htm

Both states were disasters long before Katrina came around. I would even argue that the chronic problems above are more nefarious and deadly than anything Katrina inflicted.

But comparing this to, say, the flood prevention projects of a country like the Netherlands isn't even apples and oranges. Whereas the likes of Louisiana and Mississippi can be conveniently ignored on a federal level, if the Netherlands ignored their flood-prone lands they wouldn't have a country to begin with. Almost the entire population is at risk -- rich and poor alike.

 

[.zero]

my god greg, you just did some perry mason research shit

 

[Enron]

Katrina was classic America at its worst. It's a tendency to focus on the areas you can't afford to ignore while ignoring the rest. That happens a lot. Louisiana and Mississippi, for example, are hardly just neglected in terms of natural disasters and prevention.

Check out how they rank in a lot of things, according to the U.S. Census:

#1 & #2 in unemployment rate:
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/ranks/rank25.htm

#1 & #2 in percent of people below the poverty level:
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/ranks/rank34.htm

#47 & #50 in median household income:
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/ranks/rank33.htm

#1 & #3 in infant mortality rates:
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/ranks/rank17.htm

#44 & #47 in percentage with a college degree:
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/ranks/rank19.htm

#1 and #9 in traffic fatality rates:
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/ranks/rank39.htm

and, by another survey, $44 and #48 in terms of education:
http://www.morganquitno.com/edrank.htm

Both states were disasters long before Katrina came around. I would even argue that the chronic problems above are more nefarious and deadly than anything Katrina inflicted.

But comparing this to, say, the flood prevention projects of a country like the Netherlands isn't even apples and oranges. Whereas the likes of Louisiana and Mississippi can be conveniently ignored on a federal level, if the Netherlands ignored their flood-prone lands they wouldn't have a country to begin with. Almost the entire population is at risk -- rich and poor alike.

The fact is technology for flood prevention in both Louisiana and Mississippi has been available for year. Scientists had said again and again if you don't do something, you'll be sorry. In addition, meteorological computer models predicted the devastation caused by Katrina 10 years prior to it actually happening. Both State and Federal governments chose to ignore those facts as they have ignored the facts you listed. You can say Katrina was the result of a "to do" list that was way too big and that probably is true in this case. But does that make it ok? I understand when you say it's easy for the Dutch and the like to concentrate on one area while in the US we have to concentrate much more. That really seems like a weak excuse. The US is one of the greatest countries in the world and handling multiple problems shouldn't really be an issue.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

my god greg, you just did some perry mason research shit

more like "pappy" mason

 

[swag]

The fact is technology for flood prevention in both Louisiana and Mississippi has been available for year. Scientists had said again and again if you don't do something, you'll be sorry. In addition, meteorological computer models predicted the devastation caused by Katrina 10 years prior to it actually happening. Both State and Federal governments chose to ignore those facts as they have ignored the facts you listed. You can say Katrina was the result of a "to do" list that was way too big and that probably is true in this case. But does that make it ok? I understand when you say it's easy for the Dutch and the like to concentrate on one area while in the US we have to concentrate much more. That really seems like a weak excuse. The US is one of the greatest countries in the world and handling multiple problems shouldn't really be an issue.

My brother lived for a while in Winnfield, Louisiana, which is the closest I have to any experience as to how things are there and how local, state, and federal governments fail to make a dent on their dismal failures on so many levels. (And he was there as an environmental chemist, working on a creosote clean-up project at a Superfund site.) I have no where to begin to understand the many layers of chronic problems they have.

But I never said that was OK. Just that it's easier, for example, to allow the poor slums in the Parisian suburbs to fester and burn when they are physically separated from communities with a stronger tax base, resources, and influence.

Mississippi and Louisiana are essentially the U.S.'s Southern Italy problem.

 

[swag]

more like "pappy" mason

Now who is the one pulling out the Perry Mason references?