Talk:Roof and tunnel hacking

The picture on this page is horrendously underlit. --Crucible Guardian 02:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is; my apologies. If anyone wants to photoshop it and relabel it as "computer-enhanced", they're welcome to. jdb ❋ (talk) 09:39, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

AFAIK, this really isn't called roof and tunnel hacking, at least, by most urban explorers. Perhaps we could rename it to a more suitable name? -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 16:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's called roof and tunnel hacking or just hacking at MIT and Wellesley; I don't know about elsewhere. There's already a more general page on urban exploration. -- xavid

Personal Hazards

Can anyone shed light on the demise of MIT alum Jack Link? ISTR his body was found under mysterious circumstances in the 1990's that may have been related to roof hacking. Assuming I recall correctly, this would be worthy of inclusion in the Roof and tunnel hacking#Personal hazards section. <>< tbc 05:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"An unpleasant death can occur very quickly if a tunnel explorer opens a steam valve or damages a steam pipe." This is oddly worded and I am going to reword it.

Article Neutrality

My perspective may be a little skewed since I've been exposed almost exclusively to MIT hacking, but it seems like this article has a very anti-hacking slant. Granted, it may be dangerous at times, but at this school at least it's an integral part of the culture and generally looked upon positively, even by many of the faculty. One solution might be to just make separate articles for hacking at different schools. Again, I'm probably biased, but at least hacking at MIT warrants its own article just because of its unique character, the wealth of information on the subject aside. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nightwork:_A_History_of_Hacks_and_Pranks_at_MIT and the external links on that page. I'm not a hacker myself, so it would probably be a good idea to get an actual hacker involved in revising this. 18.34.7.106 02:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, just found that very same article. 18.202.1.74 03:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reording this article so we don't lead with the dangers. To me it read like that was the most important part so we wrote it so we led with that, but I mean, really, why would you talk about consequences before explaining what it is you are talking about? Every name is taken12345 04:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if anyone has any further desire to fix this article? It really reads like a condescending college administrator talking down to a first-year (I remember them well-- it was only 7 years ago for me!) and it /really/ annoys me! I'm not going to the trouble of rewriting this if it's just going to end up rolled-back, however. Opinions? 21:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Ceiling Hacks

Has anyone heard of practice of going up into Dropped ceilings as a type of roof/tunnel hacking, it shares may aspects of them. Drop ceilings with a large amount of space (2 feet or more) between the roof (or the bottom of an floor) and the acoustic tiles can be used as a path or enterance to rooms adjacent to the the one a vadder would be in. This works with most thin walls and room dividers, but not for areas where firewalls or Compartmentalization prevent access.

This is made clearer in the article on compartmentalization:

"The idea is to subdivide a structure into "fire compartments", which may contain single or multiple rooms for the purpose of limiting the spread of fire..."

This technique can be used to access rooms and offices that are otherwise inaccessable because of walls.

Ps. Please don't delete my comments. ^^

If you sign your comments, they may not be deleted. SpigotMap 08:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opps... well here's my signing thing; 72.146.183.43 23:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia

For those interested in tunneling, you may want to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Columbia University tunnels. Wl219 08:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shameful piece of original research

My God, I've yet to read an article that is so blatantly filled with original research. Setting aside some of the very serious dubious claims (neither microwave transmissions nor microwave power transmissions are strong enough to cause any adverse affects in humans), it reads like some sort of nerd fan-cruft. Please don't just list sources and then add whatever you feel like, that isn't how it works. Provide citations for each claim that is out of the ordinary. You can cite the same source multiple times, if need be. Whatever you do, please make it more believable. This could be a good article, if some editors would engage in self-discipline. --Dragon695 (talk) 02:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OSHA disagrees with you that microwave radiation can't cause adverse affects in humans. Radar guns, for example, can cause serious problems (http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/radiofrequencyradiation/fnradpub.html). And any radio broadcast antenna can be dangerous, as in the famous example of the painters on the Sears tower (http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/radiofrequencyradiation/sears.pdf). Many college campuses do in fact have radio antenna on tall buildings, either for college radio stations or for research.