Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Man Builds His Own Subway

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the everyone-needs-a-hobby dept.

Transportation 174

jerryjamesstone writes "Everybody is into rail these days; it is the greenest way to get around next to a bike. Leonid Mulyanchik has been into it for years since before the Berlin Wall fell, since before the first Macintosh, building his own private underground Metro railway system. English-Russia says that he has been doing it with his pension, that it is all legal and approved and that he is still at it. Gizmodo calls it 'Partly the traditional, inspiring, one man against all odds type of persistence, but more the obsessive, borderline insane persistence.'" Update: 06/02 07:33 GMT by T : And if you're the type to visit Burning Man, you can actually ride a home-made monorail this summer, too.

cancel ×

174 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Interesting (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32419376)

Remind anyone of The Nite Owl, from Watchmen?

Re:Interesting (2, Insightful)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 4 years ago | (#32420218)

It reminds me Cray supercomputers creator digging a tunnel under his home where he said he would find solutions to his problems while getting visited by elves ;-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Cray#Personal_life [wikipedia.org]

Re:Interesting (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 4 years ago | (#32420510)

That's no elf.

Re:Interesting (3, Informative)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#32420946)

Poor old guy didn't realize they were just after his underpants.

Digging a hole (0, Offtopic)

Kenoli (934612) | more than 4 years ago | (#32419430)

Digging a hole, digging a hole

Re:Digging a hole (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32419684)

if he built his own subway can he ban all niggers?

Seriously? (2, Insightful)

EmagGeek (574360) | more than 4 years ago | (#32419432)

The "greenness" of a train doesn't come close to the "greenness" of a bike. It's not even within an order of magnitude... probably not even within two.

Re:Seriously? (1, Flamebait)

Rakshasa Taisab (244699) | more than 4 years ago | (#32419462)

You sure about that? What about the environmental cost of growing more food for the biker to do his biking?

Re:Seriously? (2, Funny)

Em Emalb (452530) | more than 4 years ago | (#32419558)

Cmon man, get with the times. Everyone knows Soylent Green is the best way to eat green.

It even has green in the name, that way you know it's good.

I bike to work on my made from fallen trees wooden bike, where I work at a recycling center re-using discarded plastics to make art, then I eat my yummy soylent green-brand gruel. It's fantastic.

Cmon, slashdot, go green, you jerks!

Re:Seriously? (1)

Kryptonian Jor-El (970056) | more than 4 years ago | (#32419918)

Slashdot is green, but its more of a forest green, and less of the 'environmental green' color.

hell, sometimes its blue, and sometimes purple. So we should get to work on that

Re:Seriously? (4, Funny)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#32420130)

not everyone likes the taste of soylent green. It varies from person to person.

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32420414)

bwahahahahaa. Somebody please mod this up.

Re:Seriously? (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | more than 4 years ago | (#32419570)

A lot less than the cost of smelting thousands of tons of steel for rails and cars, creating the energy to make the trains move, the sunk cost of human/vehicle weight (100 humans on 2000lbs of bikes vs. 100 humans on 150,000lbs of train car), and so on.

Then, you still have to have the bike because the train doesn't go everywhere.

Granted, you have to have roads that are passable to bikes, but a light-duty concrete suitable for bikes is a lot less costly than rail.

I ride my bike 21.9 miles each way to work. I could take the train, but it's not as green as riding my bike. And yes, I do eat more food to cover it. My PowerTap usually comes up with about 1500kJ of energy per trip, which is roughly equivalent to 1500 calories of food (once all the conversions and efficiencies are taken into account).

Crating 1lb of pasta (1600cal) costs a lot less than moving me and my share of a 150,000lb train car 22 miles.

I think.. :)

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32419670)

Yes, but you're more likely to be hit by a car when riding a bike. My dad nearly died in college when he was hit by a drunk driver while riding his bicycle on the road.

Re:Seriously? (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | more than 4 years ago | (#32419730)

I've been hit by cars three times, and I'm still here. I was mostly unhurt in all three accidents. But, I'm pretty damn lucky.

Of course, if we really wanted to be green, we'd all just ditch the cars and live within biking distance to work, and employers would have bike racks, showers, and lockers.

Re:Seriously? (1)

Kryptonian Jor-El (970056) | more than 4 years ago | (#32419966)

I would find you remarkably unlucky, having never been hit myself...yup, unlucky, or stupid

Re:Seriously? (1)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | more than 4 years ago | (#32422498)

Why is it that when something bad happens to someone (e.g. bike accident) someone has to reply with the adjective "stupid"? I mean, when you ride 22 miles X2/day each workday, accidents can happen - because you were tired, inattentive, unlucky, there was rain, whatever.
Yes, I know... this is /. and yes I am new here :)

Re:Seriously? (1)

cduffy (652) | more than 4 years ago | (#32420762)

Of course, if we really wanted to be green, we'd all just ditch the cars and live within biking distance to work

Electric assist is great for extending "biking distance". Effort per unit time can remain constant (if one so desires) while the effort per unit distance decreases.

More topically, e-biking can actually be more environmentally sound [google.com] than riding unassisted.

[...] and employers would have bike racks, showers, and lockers.

That's a matter of choosing one's employers wisely. My current one self-insures their medical coverage; as a result, they find it in their financial best interests to provide all of those things (even shampoo and conditioner are company-provided) -- but the ones prior did allow bicycles to be stored inside, and either had showers or helped to pay for membership at a nearby gym.

Re:Seriously? (1)

Philip K Dickhead (906971) | more than 4 years ago | (#32420152)

Come to Amsterdam. Se bicycling in all its urban glory!

I kid you not, man. There are at least 7000 bicycles, piled up in front of the Centraal train station, alone - any time, day or night.

Re:Seriously? (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 4 years ago | (#32419742)

The proper response is "Why more calories? You would have wasted them anyway."

A lot of people eat, store, and proceed to waste 1500 calories a day while severely raising their risk for health problems. The bike transportation solves all of these issues, and requires no "extra" calories unless you were already on a reduced calorie diet. The only downsides are dangerous roads (probably thanks to someone gorging a 1500 calorie "value meal" while steaming down the road in their SUV paying no attention to anything,) and showing up to work sweaty, rained on, and/or late.

Re:Seriously? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#32419904)

Except that's not entirely true. Biking, as well as jogging, greatly increases the exposure of a person's lungs to pollution. It's why you can have somebody that appears to be in perfect health drop dead anyways. Here's a citation, it's more specific to jogging, but it applies just as much to any aerobic exercise undertaken near traffic.Pollution: Dangerous to Joggers [time.com]

Re:Seriously? (1)

Eevee (535658) | more than 4 years ago | (#32420200)

From the fine article you provided:

while a trial in Germany found that heart attack rates in a group of people sitting in traffic -- in a car or bus, or riding a bicycle -- rose in the hour after they had been exposed to the exhaust fumes.

It's not just the exercise, or it wouldn't affect people in cars.

Re:Seriously? (1)

cfzirbes (1589283) | more than 4 years ago | (#32420590)

Exhsaust fumes or stress derived from traffic? There are too many variables...

Re:Seriously? (1)

Anarki2004 (1652007) | more than 4 years ago | (#32420610)

Studies have shown that indoor city air is often worse than the air outside. This [wikipedia.org] gives some info. I can't seem to track down a specific reference, but I know I've heard it more than once.

Re:Seriously? (1)

Dare nMc (468959) | more than 4 years ago | (#32421044)

It isn't as obvious as you state for everyone. Like it is for you. But generally it is a cost per mile. IE over the 5k miles I put on my road bike I replaced at least 5 rims*$150, 50 tubes*$15, and thus cost more to operate over those same miles as my car (lower maintenance wouldn't let me go as fast, granted, my choice). And the maintenance on the trails was just as extensive for the bikes as when the trails were used for trains. So the trains may make 1 million people miles before maintenance, no acceptable bike would. But the trains could have carried 100* more people. Imagine the amount of earth you would have to pave/set aside if 5000 bicyclists (all at different speeds...) wanted to arrive at the same destination within the same 30 minute window. And compare that to a train. Your operating your bike within a window that allows you to borrow under utilized resources that probably makes it greener for you. But it is clearly not a acceptable trade off for a entire society.

Re:Seriously? (1)

xaxa (988988) | more than 4 years ago | (#32422712)

It isn't as obvious as you state for everyone. Like it is for you. But generally it is a cost per mile. IE over the 5k miles I put on my road bike I replaced at least 5 rims*$150, 50 tubes*$15

You're very unlucky, or perhaps need more air in your tyres. I've cycled 6000km in the last year-and-a-bit, and repaired one tube (puncture repair kit: £1). I haven't replaced any rims, as I have disc brakes.

Also, I don't see any inner tubes [wiggle.co.uk] costing $15; maybe bike stuff's expensive in the USA. You can buy cheap ones for £1 here, although I would probably spend ~£4.

And the maintenance on the trails was just as extensive for the bikes as when the trails were used for trains.

Hell no! Round here they run a special measurement train over every track every two weeks, measuring for twists and slips in the track (obviously on curves the track shifts). They also check for defects in the rails. This is necessary if you want to run trains at moderate to high speeds. A group of engineers walk the line regularly too, though I'm not sure how often. Most maintenance is done at night though, so you don't see it. The failure mode for broken track isn't good, a pothole in a bike trail isn't a big deal.

Imagine the amount of earth you would have to pave/set aside if 5000 bicyclists (all at different speeds...) wanted to arrive at the same destination within the same 30 minute window.

1) They don't all need to do that -- people don't all work in the same building, and don't all live in the same building.
2) It's very easy to imagine, they're called "roads". Cities have a lot, lot, lot more road space compared to railway space.

But it is clearly not a acceptable trade off for a entire society.

Tell Denmark. Or some places in the far east.

In the USA you've already made the trade-off for cars, and they take up far more space than bicycles.

Re:Seriously? (2, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#32421058)

With bike transport, you had better also factor in the cost of growing your own garden, taking care of your own cows and chickens. etc. Because you can forget getting any food from any distance away before it spoils.

Re:Seriously? (1)

tattood (855883) | more than 4 years ago | (#32421868)

I ride my bike 21.9 miles each way to work. I could take the train, but it's not as green as riding my bike.

I think you need to look at it from a distance vs. greenness perspective. For the shorter commute (22 miles is on the very outside of what I would call a short commute) a bike is greener. For a longer commute (30+ miles) where biking is not really a viable option, a train might be a greener solution as compared to the only other option of driving a car.

Re:Seriously? (1)

xaxa (988988) | more than 4 years ago | (#32422752)

I think you need to look at it from a distance vs. greenness perspective. For the shorter commute (22 miles is on the very outside of what I would call a short commute) a bike is greener.

I think you need to realise 22 miles is not considered a short commute (even on the outside) in any country, anywhere, anytime, except in yours.

If the GP wants to be greener he should live closer to work.

Re:Seriously? (4, Insightful)

couchslug (175151) | more than 4 years ago | (#32419732)

"The "greenness" of a train doesn't come close to the "greenness" of a bike. It's not even within an order of magnitude... probably not even within two."

The train is not a Green way to move a single cyclist, but bicycles may not be a particularly Green way to move thousands of tons of cargo.

Re:Seriously? (1)

e9th (652576) | more than 4 years ago | (#32419984)

bicycles may not be a particularly Green way to move thousands of tons of cargo.

Maybe not, but I believe you have just solved the unemployment problem.

Broken window (0)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32420650)

Switching to a less efficient method just to solve unemployment is a fallacy of the broken window [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Broken window (1)

SleazyRidr (1563649) | more than 4 years ago | (#32420852)

Or, you know, a joke.

Re:Seriously? (1)

Abstrackt (609015) | more than 4 years ago | (#32420664)

bicycles may not be a particularly Green way to move thousands of tons of cargo.

Maybe not, but I believe you have just solved the unemployment problem.

Make the unemployed build bicycle bags?

Re:Seriously? (1)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | more than 4 years ago | (#32419752)

The "greenness" of a train doesn't come close to the "greenness" of a bike. It's not even within an order of magnitude... probably not even within two.

Of course it's off. You are taking a blanket term which really means everything and therefore nothing and trying to use it in a comparison.

What does your 'greenness' definition cover?

Probability to remove a vehicle from the road, probability to decrease the duration of congested traffic periods?, manufacturing costs, support infrastructure, aesthetic impact, air quality improvements, net impact on arable land availability, housing costs, quality of life, noise pollution,...

So what are you using to determine your 'orders of magnitude'?

Re:Seriously? (1)

gumbi west (610122) | more than 4 years ago | (#32419782)

It's really hard to say. Most of the costs of the bike come from the high mortality rate of riders. These are very hard to compare to the more easily fungible costs of the train.

Does anybody know of really good statistics on mortality per mile for various modes of transportation and efficiency for various modes? I do remember that in the 1990s the 1e-6 risk for a bike is about 10 miles, car about 10 times that, and about 2000 miles for a bus. Subways would presumably be off the map for safety since passenger miles are huge but fatal crashes are very rare and no worse than a bad pileup.

Re:Seriously? (2, Funny)

CubicleView (910143) | more than 4 years ago | (#32421274)

Not sure I'm on the same page, but I understood that we're refering to the "greeness" of a bike vs a train... I would have thought that taking a person out of the equation would be a net benifit to the environment. So it's just another category where bikes are more green than trains.

Re:Seriously? (2, Insightful)

vlm (69642) | more than 4 years ago | (#32420238)

The "greenness" of a train doesn't come close to the "greenness" of a bike. It's not even within an order of magnitude... probably not even within two.

Iff you do not count the greenness of the road the bike rides on, but do count the tracks the train runs on.

Re:Seriously? (1, Informative)

russotto (537200) | more than 4 years ago | (#32420774)

The "greenness" of a train doesn't come close to the "greenness" of a bike. It's not even within an order of magnitude... probably not even within two.

In practice in most of the US (don't know about Europe), the energy efficiency of passenger rail is on the same order as that of the automobile.

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32421024)

Trains are incredibly efficient movement systems.

Moving a single person, yeah, it fails there, but moving the thousands of peoples every day for work, and carrying mass packages, it completely wins hands down.

The whole process of Biking costs quite a bit of energy, from forming it to running it each day. Not to mention the upkeep required on them.
And they are particularly dangerous since the other 9999/10000 use cars.
A train is pretty much solid for decades, are safer, require little maintenance outside of testing and cleaning, and carry more than 1.

The real killer when it comes to "anti-greenness" is cars. Those things are huge, bulky, inefficient most of the time, unsafe, unclean for the most part.
Cars just plain aren't needed unless you travel large distances every day. (and by large, i mean several towns large.)
Cars just give most people an excuse to be lazy. I can't count how many times i have seen people throughout my life use cars to travel such stupidly small distances that could have been done on a bike easily.

I'd love to see the day where families bike with each other down the streets, or train / tram / subway / monorail systems becoming more popular.
Even bikes with covers over them so people don't get wet or cold would work. I have seen a few designs floating around the web.

Unlikely (2, Informative)

dzerkel (89036) | more than 4 years ago | (#32419452)

...given the type of construction used and the state of the tools in the tunnel.

Re:Unlikely (2, Informative)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 4 years ago | (#32420634)

If you look at the first link [treehugger.com] in TFA (not the Gizmodo one), you'll see it's by an architect who takes a very skeptical view of this story.

WFT (1, Troll)

zoomshorts (137587) | more than 4 years ago | (#32419488)

This was on DIGG 3 days ago. Is Slashdot becoming a DIGG mirror or what?

Re:WFT (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 4 years ago | (#32419764)

DIGG had the SCOOP on this underground tunnel story... What's it to you?

har har har har har

Re:WFT (1)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 4 years ago | (#32420124)

I like to think of Digg as a refreshed version of Slashdot without all the bitterness of Linux/OSS diehards lurking in every corner.

Re:WFT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32421438)

We all need a place to hang out, you apparently like it here since you're still reading... what's that tell you? There's a reason it's called Slashdot and not Backslashdot.

Get off my... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32419496)

...metro?

Opinion vs Fact (0, Troll)

notommy (1793412) | more than 4 years ago | (#32419544)

>>Everybody is into rail these days; it is the greenest way to get around next to a bike.

You're posting post your opinion as fact. They are different things. Please don't confuse them.

The obsessive, borderline insane persistence (1)

thepainguy (1436453) | more than 4 years ago | (#32419546)

You say it like that's a BAD thing.

Re:The obsessive, borderline insane persistence (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#32419940)

Indeed, if you eliminated the obsessive, borderline persistant people from slashdot, you'd end up with maybe a hundred.

Re:The obsessive, borderline insane persistence (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 4 years ago | (#32419982)

with a hundred owls you mean? Everyone knows that in the future instead of rats the problem is owl infestation.

Re:The obsessive, borderline insane persistence (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 4 years ago | (#32420308)

you'd end up with maybe a hundred.

... a hundred really freaking boring people.

I don't believe this... (2, Interesting)

alfredos (1694270) | more than 4 years ago | (#32419600)

I also found it hard to believe this one [ameritech.net] , too, but at least the Chicago system has a well-documented history. Here there is just a couple photos which clearly indicate very different tunnels, neither of which seems adequate for trains larger than G scale or so; also look at the comments in TFA.

Re:I don't believe this... (3, Informative)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 4 years ago | (#32420002)

The abandoment of those tunnels as well a poor maps led directly to the great chicago flood of 1992:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Flood [wikipedia.org]

Damn you kids! (2, Insightful)

zill (1690130) | more than 4 years ago | (#32419614)

Get off my subway station!

Subway Builder (1)

RafaelAngel (249818) | more than 4 years ago | (#32419720)

He likes to be called a sandwich artist.

Re:Subway Builder (1)

Em Emalb (452530) | more than 4 years ago | (#32419932)

God he'd probably do a better job than the "sandwich artists" at the actual Subway stores these days.

Slapping on condiments willy-nilly does not a good sandwich make.

Whatever keeps you going (0, Redundant)

digitalsushi (137809) | more than 4 years ago | (#32419738)

Some people watch M.A.S.H. for the second half of their life, this is no weirder

Trains? (0)

0123456 (636235) | more than 4 years ago | (#32419812)

I doubt anyone who's stood in a British railway station watching a diesel locomotive idling at the platform spewing out black clouds of particulates could really consider them 'green'; similarly a British university study a few years back found that the average commute on the London Underground was as harmful to your health as smoking a couple of cigarettes because of all the junk in the air down there.

Nor are they even particularly energy-efficient unless they're packed to capacity, which they won't be if you're using the full capacity of the tracks in order to make the best use of all that hugely expensive infrastructure; if you're running trains on a regular basis all day long you can pretty much guarantee that most will be half-empty.

Re:Trains? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32419944)

The green aspect comes from multiple people using one polluting device instead of lots of separate vehicles. The train will spew out less bad stuff then all those cars added up together.

Re:Trains? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32419998)

They use diesel on the London Underground? Seriously?

Most subways are electric-powered. Heck, most modern commuter trains run off electricity. Third rail, much?

Re:Trains? (2, Informative)

soliptic (665417) | more than 4 years ago | (#32421382)

They use diesel on the London Underground?

No

Seriously?

No

Most subways are electric-powered.

So is the london underground.

Heck, most modern commuter trains run off electricity. Third rail, much?

London Underground actually uses a four-rail system [wikipedia.org] . It's one better.

I don't know whether to blame GP for jamming together two discrete concepts (diesel trains and impure subway air) in such a way that a sloppy reader may infer causation, or to blame you for being a sloppy reader ("similarly" != "therefore") and failing to spend five seconds googling to confirm your healthy scepticism instead of spending it posting "Seriously?".

Re:Trains? (4, Informative)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 4 years ago | (#32420000)

I doubt anyone who's stood in a British railway station watching a diesel locomotive idling at the platform spewing out black clouds of particulates could really consider them 'green'

Your evidence seems to about on the level of "I know some guy who says ...".

Yes, diesel trains burn diesel fuel, with all the pollution associated with that. The key is that they burn a lot less oil than moving the equivalent amount of stuff via cars and other road vehicles. For the Underground, you're looking at the energy usage of the train versus the energy usage (and other costs) of each person on that train driving their own car.

The health issues are one of the major reasons most major cities make their light rail systems electric rather than diesel.

Re:Trains? (1)

iammani (1392285) | more than 4 years ago | (#32420416)

Not to mention the infrastructure (roads) required to handle the cars.

Re:Trains? (1)

GameMaster (148118) | more than 4 years ago | (#32420614)

Not to mention the fact that one train being maintained by professional mechanics is much, much easier to keep running at peak efficiency that the equivalent number of privately owned cars. Regardless of that the "official" specs are for a car, the average owner isn't a mechanic and is, statistically, well know for not maintaining things like tire pressure, engine tuning, etc. Regardless of whether it's well implemented in the case of London's Underground, if you wanted to improve the situation the first place to do it would be to fix the regular maintenance of the trains rather than add more cars.

Re:Trains? (2, Informative)

xaxa (988988) | more than 4 years ago | (#32422880)

The health issues are one of the major reasons most major cities make their light rail systems electric rather than diesel.

Including London. The GP is, as we say in Britain, talking bollocks. The study comparing taking the London Underground to smoking compared only the mass of the particles in the air -- and the ones in subway tunnels are pretty harmless (dead skin and iron from the wheels/rails).

Diesel trains are still used on some rural routes in the UK, although two of the largest are to be electrified soon (starting this year, IIRC).

Re:Trains? (1)

mcfedr (1081629) | more than 4 years ago | (#32420208)

umm, have you ever been on the underground? and a) seen a diesel locomotive b) an empty train (before around 9pm) c) more than a gap of about 3-4 minutes, if thats not running to capacity, what is?

Yes, I have. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32420536)

I have been on the tube in London. The air stank of industrial effluvium; it reminded me of the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel's chemical stench.

And I live in the 2nd most polluted area of the USA, so if I can smell it, it's nasty.

If you can't smell it, you've been in there so long your nose is dead.

Re:Trains? (3, Informative)

Burning1 (204959) | more than 4 years ago | (#32420262)

if you're running trains on a regular basis all day long you can pretty much guarantee that most will be half-empty.

...as opposed to the car, which, based on my observations as a commuter, is typically run 4/5ths empty?

Personal Rapid Transit (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 4 years ago | (#32420834)

Fixes most of the deficiencies of the train and the car.

Uses less than 50% of the energy per passenger kilometer than a train does.

Re:Trains? (1)

Burning1 (204959) | more than 4 years ago | (#32421300)

I doubt anyone who's stood in a British railway station watching a diesel locomotive idling at the platform spewing out black clouds of particulates could really consider them 'green.'

Remember kids: Pollution you can see is 5x worse for the environment than pollution you can't see.

Following this example... (0, Troll)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 4 years ago | (#32419898)

...I'm building my own internet. Yeah. Using whatever I can find, spare copper, terminals, old POS systems, switches, whatever. I don't care that there already is one, and that it will be years behind in technology, I'm just going to do it.

Re:Following this example... (3, Insightful)

archont (1215492) | more than 4 years ago | (#32420042)

I could tell you that it's the journey, not the destination that matters. I could tell you that after some time you'd be an expert at electronics and would gain so many different valuable skills.

But what would you need skills like that for? It's not in your job description.

Re:Following this example... (2, Insightful)

GameMaster (148118) | more than 4 years ago | (#32420674)

I could tell you that all of those skills could be acquired in a fraction of the time by checking out a couple good books on electronics from you local library. I could tell you that all of your points are rationalizations to explain away obsessive compulsive behaviors with delusions of grandeur.

But, what would you need reality for. You seem to prefer self delusion.

Re:Following this example... (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 4 years ago | (#32420284)

...I'm building my own internet. Yeah. Using whatever I can find, spare copper, terminals, old POS systems, switches, whatever. I don't care that there already is one, and that it will be years behind in technology, I'm just going to do it.

Its not the internet without pr0n. And Goatse. Just saying you got your work cut out for you.

Re:Following this example... (1)

GameMaster (148118) | more than 4 years ago | (#32420710)

Please, even on old hardware you shouldn't have a problem hosting pr0n, Goatse, and still have plenty of space/bandwidth to host Rick Astley and Tubgirl.

biznat3h (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32419968)

confi8min&g the

I guess nobody's interested . . . (1)

NicknamesAreStupid (1040118) | more than 4 years ago | (#32420012)

. . . in hearing about my missile silo.

The Russians... (1)

euyis (1521257) | more than 4 years ago | (#32420068)

...are they monsters?

Well... (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#32420072)

This guy will at least survive the upcoming nuclear apocalypse, I guess. Should there be any.

Re:Well... (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#32421138)

I don't think any of those patchwork tunnels would survive a mild earthquake, much less a nuclear blast.

Re:Well... (1)

magarity (164372) | more than 4 years ago | (#32422804)

You've got it backwards - it's a lot easier for an underground structure to survive a nuclear blast (one direction, less than a second) than an earthquake (random directions, half a minute).

accomplishments (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 4 years ago | (#32420138)

some people single-handedly try to build subways others put weapons on robots. It's all good.

in soviet russia train builds you! (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#32420368)

in soviet russia train builds you!

Sounds like a modern-day Burro Schmidt (4, Informative)

linuxwrangler (582055) | more than 4 years ago | (#32420476)

William “Burro” Schmidt started in 1902 and spent 33 years digging his 2087-foot tunnel through solid rock on Copper Mountain. About all people could get as a reason was that it was a "shortcut."

http://www.desertusa.com/mag05/sep/tunnel.html [desertusa.com]

Re:Sounds like a modern-day Burro Schmidt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32422492)

Funny, I'd think he'd be William "Burrow" Schmidt.

The First Macintosh? (1)

MaWeiTao (908546) | more than 4 years ago | (#32420562)

Leonid Mulyanchik has been into it for years since before the Berlin Wall fell, since before the first Macintosh

I didn't realize that the Macintosh was as significant an historical milestone as the fall of the Berlin Wall.

It really speaks to how materialistic a society we've become that we define events by the advent of a some product.

Re:The First Macintosh? (2, Insightful)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32420836)

Well, considering that it seems most people are beginning to forget what communist Russia was like, what Nazi Germany was like, what the holocaust was like (and it wasn't just Jews, although they certainly bore quite a bit of it, it seems)...

It seems that we are tending to brainwash young folk to believe a certain thing about society and people (generally, we're good people, and society is good, and we can all reach peace and happiness if everyone just "gets along." And don't criticize me, either). When certain historical incidents don't match up with that general, nice-feeling idea - such as the holocaust, communist Russia, the Berlin Wall, wars in general, communist China, and many-many-many other bad things that have happened... the tendency seems to be to dismiss those incidents at strange, or consider those people to be somehow ... I don't know, less-highly evolved or something?

In other words, we're beginning to forget the past, because it "doesn't make sense" with what we want to think about ourselves.

Sorta like that electrical-shock game show that they did in France recently? the test, that is... people were "outraged" that the game show made them act that way. Because they KNEW they wouldn't have done those things if it wasn't for the peer pressure and game show situation and all that, but a psychological phenomena occurred where they did it even though they didn't want to! ... right. In my book, being willing to do something due to peer pressure means you don't really think it's all that bad to begin with.

But apparently, we think SO highly of ourselves and think we're above these sorts of bad behaviors, and thus - when shown that that is not true - we blame it on something else. Like ... "society" ("peer pressure" or the "game show" or whatever). Psychologically scarring? Sure. It should be. It should make people realize that they are capable of very bad behavior, and need to remember that and guard against going along with it, just because other people are telling them to.

Re:The First Macintosh? (1)

unkiereamus (1061340) | more than 4 years ago | (#32421416)

Leonid Mulyanchik has been into it for years since before the Berlin Wall fell, since before the first Macintosh

I didn't realize that the Macintosh was as significant an historical milestone as the fall of the Berlin Wall.

It really speaks to how materialistic a society we've become that we define events by the advent of a some product.

I think you're missing the point. It's not about the significance of the event, it's about how well known the date of the event is.

Quick, when was the first Mac introduced? When did the Berlin wall fall? You probably know those off the top of your head, don't you? Year, if not month and day.

On the flip side, When was Agincourt [wikipedia.org] ? Or the Gulf of Tonkin incident?

Meh. (2, Informative)

PPH (736903) | more than 4 years ago | (#32420930)

Lots of these running under the Gaza-Egyptian border.

Re:Meh. (3, Funny)

JSBiff (87824) | more than 4 years ago | (#32421952)

Also, the Mexico-U.S. Border.

Cathedral (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32420932)

Here in Spain we've got a man building a cathedral:

http://www.minusval2000.com/otros/reportajes/catedral_con_justo/ [minusval2000.com]

Link is in spanish.

Fred Dibnah (1)

alanw (1822) | more than 4 years ago | (#32421246)

And in England we had Fred Dibnah digging a replica coal mine [wikipedia.org] in his back garden.

Subway? (1)

Virmal (1281900) | more than 4 years ago | (#32421230)

When I read the headlines, I thought he was building a foot-long sandwich...

meter a day for 26 years = (1)

cheatch (1713998) | more than 4 years ago | (#32421452)

half a mile...
I would say this guy is more like building an underground escape route out of his house for some crazy reason, just look at his eyes.

Blaumilch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32421582)

Reminds me of this [wikipedia.org]

Passion! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32422238)

Cool. It is good to have a project. This is called a folly. Great fun.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>