Outrageous idea

I've been thinking about this idea on and off for a while, but now I think I'll publicize it a bit.

People are competing to build the largest structure all the time. We awe at the incredible feats engineers accomplish. We become more confined in our homes and communities. We try (or so the claim is given) to be more environment friendly.

All around me there are suburbs popping up, where the people only have to walk a block or two to have most everything. We dream of one day living on Mars, at first in a giant community, and later, possibly on the planet. For long periods of time, there have been thriving communities underground, in caves, etc. Space is slowly becoming in demand as populations grow. How large can a city get?


The Mile Cube. Yes, a cube that is a mile wide, a mile long, and a mile high. Or for non US folk, that is 1.6 kilometers, approximately 264 floors. It would be a huge feat to accomplish, but is it an unrealistic idea? Would people move in?

First of all, this idea is quite challenging to wrap your mind around. If you have seen skyscrapers up close, the world's tallest is around 1800 ft or 620 meters high. A mile is 5280 feet or 1600 meters.

What challenges would there be? Well, I'm not an engineer or anything of the sort, so I am undoubtedly missing a lot, but here are some I see:

Cost. It costs in the billions of dollars to build current skyscrapers, so something 4 times higher and at least 20 times wider, the cost is going to be in the trillions. Not even Bill Gates, one of the richest men in the world can afford that presently.

Escape. What happens if there is a fire? Fire regulations will definitely play a huge role in if it is even possible. The building could be made of non-combustibles, but that only limits the damages.

Gases. Fresh air, stale air, carbon dioxide, other gases (methane), they all need to be moved up to 0.5 miles, and quickly. Otherwise, they need to be filtered, and recirculated. Trees could be planted in the building, but they can only convert so much so quickly. Perhaps having every other floor growing nothing but plants would help offset things.

Cooling. Keeping the temperature regulated in such a structure would be quite the challenge. Heating wouldn't be as much of an issue, as electronics and people give off heat. Even the coldest weather outside would be of little to no consequence as the building would be large enough heat from the inside would readily keep things warm. Cooling can't be done in the traditional manner--each home having a cooling unit, nor in the commercial manner--the business having a huge cooling unit. It would probably take most of a floor to house the equipment to keep the temperature cool.

Structural support. I imagine having a cube rather than a skyscraper is easier in some respects, but the building would weigh in the millions of tons, so assuming no foundation issues (which may be assuming far too much), the supports for the building would have to be massive, or new ways of supporting things would have to be devised. Think biology.

Layout. Each housing area would have to be close to a job and other necessities.

Transportation. In a compact city like this, gas emitting vehicles would be out of the question, as they would more than double the required gas evacuation. So it would need a all electric transport, or people walking, or biking. However, as some people might want large items such as refrigerators, pianos, etc in their 'house', there would have to be some sort of transport available capable of carrying large and/or heavy items. And keep in mind, this would be up and down as well as to and fro. The transport system would have to transport all of the inhabitants at a rate comparable with present speeds. And none of this even addresses getting out. The structure could be sunk 0.5 miles (half way) to ensure foundational stability, and also to ensure the furthest anyone has to travel to get out is 0.7 miles (0.5 miles up and over if they are in the bottom or top center).

Utilities. Electricity, water, phone, internet... all of those would need to be brought in and taken out, or would need to be addressed in 'house'.

Health. Would the engineers be able to effectively replace natural sunlight with artificial sunlight? Would they be able to offer healthy fresh air indoors? Would they be able to prevent or minimize disease spread (and, even pests who carry disease)?

Willingness. Would people be willing to live in a giant building they would probably never leave, or only leave maybe once a year. Would people be willing to have indoor parks, artificial sunlight, no or artificial breezes, and no weather?

Again, I undoubtedly missed some major things, but most, if not all of them could be addressed, with the possible exception of the cost. But is a single building comfortably housing approximately 3.5 million people in 1 cube mile going too far? If not,
what is to stop us from going 2 miles instead? We don't have to go up or down this much, but we could go out by this. We could have an airport on the top of such a building, and the planes could almost have no runway as they would be high enough up, they would simply need to drop off the building to gain airspeed. Of course no one would like this idea, they prefer long airstrips. But the room is there for a decent airport. Is there any benefit to something like this? Well, cities are trying to deal with how compact they can get, how populated they can be, this allows for tremendous increases over present means.

One day, we may be living like this, but that day is probably beyond our lifetime.

Bribes for the recalcitrants?

In a news article today, Microsoft is trying to bribe your IT guys at work to make you use Microsoft Live Search, as it is rather dead. For those who prefer another search engine (Say, maybe Google?!?! Though Yahoo is higher in rank than Microsoft), Microsoft sees such people as "recalcitrant'. Yeah. Recalcitrant, according to dictionary.com " Stubbornly resistant to and defiant of authority or restraint."

Yeah, Microsoft (or at least Mr Sohn who was speaking for Microsoft) thinks people who use a *ahem* superior product are defiant of authority (uhm, who?) or defiant to restraint. Makes you want to rush out and use Microsoft products, no?


In better news... EMI is seeing the light! You will soon be able to buy *high quality* *drm-FREE* music. And by high quality, think 256Kbps over the normal 128.


And Dell is soon to be selling Linux pre-installed. Hopefully for a lower price (no Microsoft tax).

The future is looking pretty good for consumers in charge, and a bit poor for Microsoft: Search is dead, DRM is dead, and tax is dead. Vista was still-born, and with all of it's DRM focused kernel and media player, and other performance/compatibility, etc issues... And the XBox is still selling at a loss (hardware), but with DRM dead, the point of locking down the hardware becomes rather, ... moot. Might Microsoft be on their last chapter in history? Time will tell...