Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Earth Technology

7-Story Wooden Condo Survives 7.5 Magnitude Quake 146

Posted by timothy
from the this-is-awesome dept.
Mike writes "Earthquake news abounds as of late — recently a team of researchers from five universities unveiled an seven-story earthquake-proof wooden building that is capable of withstanding severe earthquakes. Featuring a structurally efficient nail distribution and a 63 anchor tie down system, the wooden condominium survived a test using an E-Defense shake table, which simulated a 7.5 magnitude quake (check out the video!)"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

7-Story Wooden Condo Survives 7.5 Magnitude Quake

Comments Filter:
  • Lasts? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by FredFredrickson (1177871) * on Monday July 20, 2009 @01:45PM (#28758759) Homepage Journal
    The question is- does it last in such a way that you just keep living like nothing happened after the quake? or.. lasts, as in, doesn't kill everybody in and around the building, but you probably want a new one if it goes through an earthquake even once..
    • by Brigadier (12956) on Monday July 20, 2009 @01:53PM (#28758951)

      Believe it or not current structural code functions to provide surviveability for it's occupants. I'm an architect in southern california and prior to 1997 buildings were designed to basically allow occupants to escape, however due to the financial toll of northridge the structural code was revamped to prevent flexing which would result in the building not having sever cosmetic damage. This however resulted in drastically increased construction costs. The fact is you want a building that will flex as opposed to break. It always cracks me up because there is a war between wood mfgs and steel mfgs. Currently your typical stick framed building stops at three stories (in southern california) after this you need to switch to steel or concrete. Manufactureres like simpson strong tie are working hard to push the limit of wood to allow them a greater market share.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mpapet (761907)

      The general idea is to have the building _not_ collapse on top of you.

      As a lifetime resident of Los Angeles that's experienced all of the big quakes back to the 1970's, I've been in stick construction houses for all of the quakes and didn't even experience a broken window. They shake like crazy and it's loud as hell in the big ones, but the stick design is very flexible.

      The older homes here 1930's have foundation problems more than anything else in the big ones. They tend to be lathe/plaster walls, but

      • The older homes here 1930's have foundation problems more than anything else in the big ones. They tend to be lathe/plaster walls, but still stick-style construction.

        That would include my favourite, older buildings using stick-style construction with brick exteriors.

    • From watching the movie, it remained in one piece, with no visible change. Maybe there was structural damage, but the article didn't mention it. It looked like it was shaking a bit, so if it'd had sheetrock, the sheetrock might have become cracked. If there were books on shelves, the books likely would have fallen off.

      Also, check out the movie, if you've ever lived through an earthquake, it looks just like a real one feels, not sharp shaking back and forth, but gentle moving in seeming random direction
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Shikaku (1129753)

      Yeah, why would you make this kind of technology on such shaky grounds anyway?

  • by gapagos (1264716) on Monday July 20, 2009 @01:46PM (#28758775)

    Would it survive fire?

    • How about a tornado, earthquake, and fire at the same time?

      When 2012 comes will it protect me from the hordes of flesh eating locusts?

      • This may sound facetious, but I had a similar question the first time I saw a large Sodium-sulfide (NaS) battery. It was the size of a garden shed, and basically was filled with molten sodium. The engineers said that it was safe from thunderstorms, tornadoes, tree falls, and earthquakes. My first question was "it is safe from two or three of those if they happen at the same time?"

        A now very pale engineer answered "no". I guess they hadn't considered a tree falling on it in the rain, and we all know h
        • by Bigjeff5 (1143585)

          ...we all know how much fun sodium is when it gets wet...

          I suppose you make sure your table salt doesn't get wet either, eh? It's got the same chemical structure and behaves similarly to sodiumsulfide because they are both salts. Wet NaS is no more going to have a violent chemical reaction with water than NaCl (aka table salt) will.

          Now, what might be a danger would be the incredibly massive transfer of thermal energy from the molten NaS to water, probably creating a super-heated steam almost instantly. I could see the area around a NaS battery becoming quite d

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by mcrbids (148650)

        How about a tornado, earthquake, and fire at the same time?

        What, did you get bored playing Sim-City? ('cept you forgot the alien attack!?)

    • Good point. Would the Gas piping also survive? If not, the fire would probably kill it.

      Also, Would it make sense to have the sprinkler system go off in the case of an earthquake? Or would that be just as likely destroyed as the natural Gase pipes?

    • This is a good question, especially since fires and earthquakes tend to go hand-in-hand. I certainly hope they don't use gas in these buildings.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 20, 2009 @01:52PM (#28758935)
      Duh, haven't you ever heard of asbestos?
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by sammyF70 (1154563)

      It doesn't make a difference, does it? I mean : your standard steel or concrete house will burn as well as a wooden one, unless it's completely empty of any inflammable materials (and even then, I'm not sure it would be structurally okay once the flames are out).

      I'm living in a wooden house (although it's only 2 stories high), and we had an approximately 1minute long 7.4 earthquake slightly over a year ago (just two months after being visited by a hurricane actually). From what my sister in law who was in i

      • your standard steel or concrete house will burn as well as a wooden one, unless it's completely empty of any inflammable materials

        Oddly enough (and assuming you meant to write "flammable" instead of "inflammable"), straw houses [wikipedia.org] which are traditional post and beam construction with infill, are very fire resistant.

        • by sammyF70 (1154563)
          yes. sorry. that's what I meant :)
        • Re:What about fire? (Score:4, Informative)

          by srussia (884021) on Monday July 20, 2009 @03:01PM (#28760085)

          Oddly enough (and assuming you meant to write "flammable" instead of "inflammable")...

          Oddly enough, "flammable" and "inflammable" mean the same thing.

          • by kalirion (728907)

            What a country!

          • by plover (150551) *

            Oddly enough (and assuming you meant to write "flammable" instead of "inflammable")...

            Oddly enough, "flammable" and "inflammable" mean the same thing.

            Yeah, that was a painful lesson!

        • by lgw (121541)

          "Flammable" is a silly word (although I'm sure it's crept into dictionaries by now). "Inflammable" means "likely to burst into flame". Because this confused the illiterate, people wisely started using "flammable" on warning signs, and now it's as common as "ain't". "Inflammable" remains the better word.

          • "Inflammable" means "likely to burst into flame". Because this confused the illiterate

            Confused the illiterate? Literally one meaning of the prefix "in-" is not [onelook.com] as in "insane", not sane. Or "inseparable", not separable. Following the rule "inflammable" would mean "not flammable", so "flammable" is the better word for easy to burn. What is confusing is changing the rules.

            But then again, English is a Crazy Language [amazon.com]. In what other language does feet smell and noses run. Or look at the plural of tooth, "te

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by adonoman (624929)
              And yet no one gets confused about the meaning "inflamation". If "flammable" was never used, there'd be no confusion about "inflammable".
              • And yet no one gets confused about the meaning "inflamation".

                Maybe that's because an inflammation, with two "m"s is a swelling and is usually accompanied by heat.

                Falcon

            • by KillerBob (217953)

              "inflammable" means that the substance in question can inflame. "inflame" is the verb which means "to begin to burn". It is *exactly* the same verb that's the source of the word "inflammation", which in medical terms refers to the heat that's given off by the extra blood flow to the affected area.

              It's not a question of "in" being a prefix. In this word it's not a prefix. It's part of the root of the word.

            • in-flamable is just the english word every native english speaker should use for "not flamable", your logic only makes sense if you are not an native english speaker.

              "in" is not only a synonym for "not" but also an emphasizing prefix. All over europe (and that is where modern english has its origin from):
              spanish: inflameable -> inflamable, german: in-flame-able -> ent-flamm-bar, italian: inflameable -> accendibile / in-fiamm-abile.

              "In" does not mean "un" in general in english. "In" means "empore".

              A

              • in-flamable is just the english word every native english speaker should use for "not flamable", your logic only makes sense if you are not an native english speaker.

                That's what I said, and I am a native English speaker.

                Falcon

            • by lgw (121541)

              Yup, the "in-" prefix means both "not" and "lots" (both from latin roots, unlike most collisions like that). English, infamous for its ingenuity in incorporating informative infixes.

              • I don't recall the "in-" prefix means "lots" so I checked my dictionaries, I have 4, as well as OneLook [onelook.com]. With OneLook I checked the first 10 links to the definition and not one gave "lots" as a definition. Now "in" as in into and "towards" was given as well as other definitions [wiktionary.org] but not "lots". Can you give an example of it used that way?

                I'll feel real stupid after you give one.

                Falcon

                • by lgw (121541)

                  The "in-" prefix is used as an intensifier ("towards" for verbs, but the stronger "has" or even "has lots" for adjectives). Each of the examples I gave above were different places along that spectrum. Ingenious as "has the generative nature", infamous as "overly famous" or "ill-famed" but not "non-famous". Incorporate as "create body" (but incorporeal as "without body"). "Inform" as "create form" (but also "without form" in older usage, amusingly). Even my accidental example, "intense" as "has lots of

        • They kinda mean the same thing though...
          Dr. Nick: What a country!

        • Oddly enough (and assuming you meant to write "flammable" instead of "inflammable"),

          Why? Inflammable [reference.com] means easily set on fire, not fireproof. "Flammable" is a neologism created by people who clearly made the same wrong (but reasonable) assumption that you just did.

    • Wood is inflammable!

    • by sunking2 (521698)
      What about the big bad wolf?
    • by RichiH (749257)

      Generally speaking, a properly impregnated wooden house will last longer than a concrete one. An even the ones which were not impregnated will still have the large beam structure standing after burning down. That is because the outer wood burns, becomes coal and does not let enough oxygen to the wood so it can continue to burn.

  • by v1 (525388)

    Am I the only one that didn't find that earthquake video very impressive? I would hope any building would survive that. Looks like a very tame earthquake.

    Also it was really light... no siding, no SHINGLES, no furniture, probably no plumbing. NOT impressed.

    • This is actually very old news. I live in Earthquake city, USA, so most houses here are wooden, so they can twist (and businesses are usually in buildings set on rollers). I talked to a guy from Israel, asking what the buildings were like there (If they had a more US or European way to decorating an interior) and he said "Well, first, there's no wood. It's concrete. We're not afraid of earthquakes hitting our houses, we're afraid of rockets hitting them."
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by iamhassi (659463)
      "Also it was really light... no siding, no SHINGLES, no furniture, probably no plumbing. NOT impressed."

      You want impressive? Try this video [youtube.com]. Skip to 4:35 if you wanna see the dining room.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by iamhassi (659463)
        Here's another link of a dining room [popularmechanics.com], but this time it's for the wooden building in the article. Last post was a link for a different building test.
        • That video of the dining room was just realistic enough that I half expected a car alarm to go off. And then I thought I heard a siren, but instead, it was people cheering.

          What a letdown.

    • by cyn1c77 (928549)

      Am I the only one that didn't find that earthquake video very impressive? I would hope any building would survive that. Looks like a very tame earthquake.

      Also it was really light... no siding, no SHINGLES, no furniture, probably no plumbing. NOT impressed.

      It does look weak, but I have participated in quake testing and real earthquakes. You can really feel the motion on the roof. And that "unimpressive motion" is pretty dramatic when you are in the 4th floor of building and you have to sit there and wait to see what happens while everything gets shaken off your desk and wall.

      But I agree that siding and shingles might change the loading a bit. But remember, this is research. They are just proving a concept.

    • Re:uh, wow? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by timeOday (582209) on Monday July 20, 2009 @02:13PM (#28759287)

      Also it was really light... no siding, no SHINGLES, no furniture, probably no plumbing. NOT impressed.

      Yeah, they could have made it much cooler with computer generated graphics, instead they probably blew their whole production budget on the world's largest shake table, a million pounds of wood, and a huge team of highly trained Japanese scientists and engineers. If nothing else, it needs more fire, and way more Godzilla. Two thumbs down!

      (I love slashdot).

    • by Chris Burke (6130)

      So a magnitude 7.5 [wikipedia.org] sounds like a tame earthquake to you? And you figure it should be simple to make a wood building that survives such an earthquake, especially without siding or furniture?

      I'm not very impressed with you.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by frogzilla (1229188)

      Two houses. One reinforced. Shaken at the same time.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kc652Zp5qWk [youtube.com]

    • Watch the video from inside the building. The earthquake doesn't look that impressive in the outside video because of the scale, and our lack of our ability to sense that properly. However, after viewing the inside video, I can say there's no way I'd want to go through that kind of quake.

  • by The_mad_linguist (1019680) on Monday July 20, 2009 @01:47PM (#28758815)

    Simulations are nice and all, but it's a bit inaccurate to say it "survived a 7.5 magnitude quake" when it didn't actually.

    Also, adding in 63 steel rods seems to defeat the purpose of calling it a "wooden building".

    • by OrangeTide (124937) on Monday July 20, 2009 @01:51PM (#28758895) Homepage Journal

      Yea those cheaters, I bet they didn't use wooden nails either!

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Brigadier (12956)

      the whole purpose of something like this is to justify wood as a acceptable material for 3 or more stories (well in california) by doing this they increase the market share of wood. See simpson strong tie.... truth is this was an empty home with no realistic live loads. ie file cabinets couches TV etc. You also have to add dead loads like windows, doors finishes etc.

      • by timeOday (582209)
        Most building designs are never tested this way at all - think they just plug some numbers into some equations, multiply everything by 5 or 10, and build it. Couches and TVs don't enter into it.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by socrplayr813 (1372733)

      Simulations are nice and all, but it's a bit inaccurate to say it "survived a 7.5 magnitude quake" when it didn't actually.

      You're just arguing semantics. The forces applied by these shake tables are close enough to the real thing to give us a good idea of what the building can survive. Yes, you can argue "it's not a real quake," but that's pointless. Are they supposed to wait for a real quake for their test?

      Also, adding in 63 steel rods seems to defeat the purpose of calling it a "wooden building".

      As others have said, they're just trying to provide evidence that wood is a viable building material for larger buildings.

  • Orwellian (Score:4, Informative)

    by pushing-robot (1037830) on Monday July 20, 2009 @01:48PM (#28758845)

    seven-story earthquake-proof wooden building

    There! Are! Six! Floors!

    • by iamhassi (659463) on Monday July 20, 2009 @02:07PM (#28759175) Journal
      "There! Are! Six! Floors!"

      Hmm... that's what I count too. Maybe they're using that new math, where the roof counts? Looks flat, you could probably put some tents on it and someone would rent it, especially in LA.
      • by schon (31600)

        "There! Are! Six! Floors!"

        Hmm... that's what I count too. Maybe they're using that new math, where the roof counts?

        Maybe they're in China? [flickr.com] :)

    • by ATestR (1060586)
      The first floor is open... a parking garage? Still counts, structurally.
      • by ATestR (1060586)

        My mistake... I looked at the picture more closely, and now see what I thought was a parking garage is actually the shake table.

        Yes, only 6 floors, and as I recall from my days as an engineer (and in the Seismic class), although the roof load is calculated in the design, it IS NOT a separate floor.

    • by ArsonSmith (13997)

      That's just standard in many buildings due to superstitions. They don't count the 13th floor.

    • by Junior J. Junior III (192702) on Monday July 20, 2009 @02:43PM (#28759811) Homepage

      They were including the story about it surviving the magnitude 7.5 quake.

    • by srussia (884021)

      seven-story earthquake-proof wooden building

      There! Are! Six! Floors!

      It's actually seven. Linked video from TFA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2XMfOXVOvo) shows where the shake table level is.

    • by gubers33 (1302099)
      Technically the bottom floor which isn't enclosed counts as a story, it would be the basement actually.However, that part looks like it is made up of steel beams, not wood. Although it looks like a lot of the joints and supports are metal as well. So they are still lying!
    • You forgot the basement. You know, the place where cars park. 6 stories is a lot of people, so they need a whole floor for parking!

  • Unimpressive... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by thisnamestoolong (1584383) on Monday July 20, 2009 @01:52PM (#28758931)
    I don't know what they are trying to prove with this crap here but I am not at all impressed by that video -- I mean the building is completely empty and naked! Wouldn't the siding, roofing, walls, doors, windows, people, and furnishings make the building more heavy (and more likely to collapse)? Wouldn't the plumbing make the building more rigid and again, more likely to collapse? If I am incorrect please let me know, but it seems to me that this experiment proves precisely nothing.
    • Re:Unimpressive... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by phantomfive (622387) on Monday July 20, 2009 @02:09PM (#28759211) Journal
      Please. How much exactly do you think is known about keeping buildings together in an earthquake? The body of knowledge is improving, but there is still a lot we don't know. These guys have developed a way that will keep buildings together better than what we had previously. Even if no one ever actually builds a seven story condo, this is knowledge that will help in any kind of wood construction.

      Besides, if you are not impressed then you missed the coolest part of the video. They have a platform there that can move a million pound structure around in simulation of a real earthquake. If that's not cool technology, I don't know what is.
    • Re:Unimpressive... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tool462 (677306) on Monday July 20, 2009 @02:11PM (#28759251)

      It would be interesting to see how a traditionally constructed wooden building fares in that test. If, built out to the same level, a traditional structure collapses like it's made of toothpicks, then this proves something quite significant.

    • Re:Unimpressive... (Score:5, Informative)

      by QuantumRiff (120817) on Monday July 20, 2009 @02:12PM (#28759267)

      No, things like siding would just have to be torn off, to make sure the inside structure was still sound. You don't want to cover up the core structure for cosmetic reasons.. Also, that stuff does not really add much weight, and would be more likely to suffer damage, (ie, windows cracking, siding torn, Kitchen cabinets damaged, etc) that would not damage the integrity of the building, IE, they don't care if they have to replace the windows, the key is that the building doesn't collapse.

    • by timeOday (582209)
      If only they had consulted you before wasting all that time and effort.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by frogzilla (1229188)

      Actually the building had steel plates on each floor to represent the real weight of the finishing materials and furnishings. There were a few dummy rooms with furnishing etc. Earthquakes don't look that bad from a distance. The shaking is strong though and the building has to stand up to it. Some of the forces exerted are stronger than gravity (the Northridge quake apparently exceeded 1.0 g -- up to 1.8 I think). In this case they are testing a new construction design and want to see if the real buildi

    • I mean the building is completely empty and naked!

      I didn't RTFA or watch the video, but now I'm tempted. After all, what geek can possibly resist a video about anything that's naked, even a building? Pr0n!

    • Re:Unimpressive... (Score:4, Informative)

      by russotto (537200) on Monday July 20, 2009 @08:34PM (#28764231) Journal

      I don't know what they are trying to prove with this crap here but I am not at all impressed by that video -- I mean the building is completely empty and naked! Wouldn't the siding, roofing, walls, doors, windows, people, and furnishings make the building more heavy (and more likely to collapse)? Wouldn't the plumbing make the building more rigid and again, more likely to collapse?

      Not plumbing. Neither copper nor plastic (and I doubt they'll be using cast iron in new construction) has enough rigidity to make the building more rigid, particularly since it isn't even tied into the structure (it's just on sheet-metal hangars, unless that's different in earthquake areas).

  • But! (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by TasmanianX (1584991)
    Can I be the first to make the "Would it survive Godzilla?" comment.
  • "The Yingzhou zhi records that there was a total of seven earthquakes between the years 1056 and 1103, yet the tower stood firm."
    Pagoda of Fogong Temple [wikipedia.org]
    • But who knows how large the earthquakes were. Any structure could probably survive a good amount of tiny-ish earthquakes.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        But who knows how large the earthquakes were. Any structure could probably survive a good amount of tiny-ish earthquakes.

        This is easily fixed; just edit the Wikipedia entry to indicate that they were all 6.0 magnitude plus.

        • by Bigjeff5 (1143585)

          Pfft, nowhere near good enough, the earthquake in the store was one and a half orders of magnitude larger than a 6.0.

          7.0 or bust (literally!).

  • by G-Man (79561) on Monday July 20, 2009 @02:55PM (#28759975)

    Disclaimer: IAAAS/IANYAA (I am an architecture student/I am not yet an architect).

    Good for them, but it doesn't really surprise me that you can make a building of that type/size earthquake-resistant. While the building is technically "wood", they are using a lot of engineered lumber (lumber that is made from particles/chips of wood held together with a binder). Looking at the pictures in the article, the building is sheathed in OSB (oriented strand board), which acts as a very good shear panel. The floors are supported using TJIs (Truss Joist I-Beams), where the top and bottom of the TJI is made of laminated wood and OSB is used as the webbing of the truss. These things are very strong, and they are anchored on the ends with galvanized steel hangars, which are very secure. The weak point in wood structures is frequently in how the pieces are joined together, and the hangars largely address that. Engineered lumber is increasingly popular in US wood construction, not for earthquake reasons, but because it is very consistent - it comes in the exact size you order, doesn't warp/twist/bow, etc., and it doesn't have knotholes. Where this building uses regular milled lumber they often stack it 6-7 deep to make columns.

    They are still using steel - in the foundation and in the tiedown system, to do critical structural work. Nothing wrong with that, it's the smart thing to do. Steel has awesome tensile strength.

    My guess is that a mid-rise made using this method would be significantly cheaper than reinforced concrete, and somewhat cheaper than steel. The difference is that a steel framed building will be put together by skilled welders, while the framers putting this building up will tend to be of a lower skill level - one reason this building would be cheaper - and you'll have to keep a closer eye on the construction. Given the need for engineered lumber, selective use of steel, and close attention to how the building is put together, I don't see this as a panacea for earthquake-resistant housing in the third-world. I'm sure they would love it in California, though. The big challenge is ensuring consistent construction and getting the changes in the building code (particularly in CA, which is more earthquake conscious than other states). Beyond that, it's just a question of cost.

    • You can't be an architecture student.

      You appear to understand structures.

      Get your ass over to the engineering school and design buildings that should be torn down.

      Let the architects get back to design buildings that will fall down.

    • by MtViewGuy (197597)

      If I remember correctly, pagoda temples built in Japan are famous for their earthquake-proof designs because the design of the pagoda itself and the use of hardwood structural members meant the building would absorb the shock of an earthquake, which meant the building could even survive the occasional very strong earthquake that are common in Japan.

      Indeed, the Taipei 101 skyscraper uses the same structural principle found in Japanese pagodas in order to withstand the earthquakes that happen on the island of

  • Code enforcement (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Animats (122034) on Monday July 20, 2009 @02:57PM (#28760005) Homepage

    There's no technical problem making a wood building that strong. It's the enforcement that's the problem. Wood has good tensile strength, but the joints usually used in wood construction don't.

    A few years ago, after some hurricanes, many Florida builders were discovered not to be building to code. Hurricane-proofing for small wood structures mostly consists of putting in metal brackets at joints to give wood-to-wood joints tensile strength. Not only do the brackets have to be put in, nails have to be hammered into all the holes in the brackets. Many contractors were sloppy about that, resulting in a big loss of tensile strength and major damage (like roofs ripped off) during hurricanes.

    A big problem in the Third World is bad concrete mixes. Much concrete construction goes up without enough cement in the mix, and that results in building collapses.

    Here's a good project for someone - develop a low-cost hand held device for concrete testing. [state.il.us] The existing techniques are slow, labor-intensive, and a pain to use. Tests for hardened concrete usually involve cutting out a plug and sending it to a lab elsewhere. Small portable devices would be a big help here.

  • I have to admit that I'm a little underwhelmed by the video. I watched it, and about halfway through was thinking: They must ramp it right up at the end.

    *That* was 7.5? It looked very tame.
    I do live in the notoriously un-earthquakey British Isles though, so perhaps I'm lacking perspective.
    • I have to admit that I'm a little underwhelmed by the video.

      Same here, I didn't think much of the video. However someone posted a link to a video of the inside [popularmechanics.com]. I saw that and said that's more like it.

      Falcon

      • by caluml (551744)
        Aaah :) That's more like it.

        I'd still like to experience it though.
        • Aaah :) That's more like it.

          I'd still like to experience it though.

          Same here. I don't know if I've ever been in an earthquake but I've been in severe thunderstorms and had close encounters with hurricanes. Growing up in Florida friends of mine and I had this saying, it was easy to tell a true Floridian from a transplant, when a hurricane comes along the Floridian says it's tyme to batten the hatches whereas the transplant panics, throws up his arms in the air, and screams "Let's get out of here."

          Falcon

Help stamp out Mickey-Mouse computer interfaces -- Menus are for Restaurants!

Working...