Australian Billionaire Plans To Build Titanic II

Go Ballmer! by TechCar · 2012-04-30 05:46 · Score: 5, Funny

It would be nice to take a sail on such stylish, vintage ship. I hope they also have dress codes for women so they will wear vintage dresses. After having a nice dinner I will take some nice lady to her room and draw her naked. Then have sex with her in a vintage car. And die after we crash into New Zealand.

Re:Go Ballmer! by SJHillman · 2012-04-30 05:48 · Score: 4, Funny

Sounds a little bit like a Renaissance fair, but obviously set in the early 1900s. I could see it being a nice theme cruise. Extra points if they design it to break in half and sink.
Re:Go Ballmer! by vlm · 2012-04-30 06:02 · Score: 4, Funny

I hope they also have dress codes for women so they will wear vintage dresses.
Yes, this is an interesting issue. As I recall the titanic was originally designed for Extreme separation of the classes, it would almost be physically impossible for steerage class and first class to ever see each other. However, the modern trend is for uniclass, with at most a slight variation in rooms which you never spend any time in anyway, as I saw on my honeymoon cruise some years ago.
I predict much heartache, because every walmart shopping, tramp stamp wearing, pork rind munching bubbette is gonna expect she will be in first class, so she's either gonna be disappointed when she spends her cruise in steerage with, perhaps at most, a guided tour of the 1st class digs, or, she's going to be all wound up about having to pack 13 pairs of shoes because clearly the grand dining room is not going to accept thongs and flipflops in its dress code. Or she tolerates all the packing and getting dressed up and goes to the fancy dinner hoping for movie re-enactment scenes where everyone dressed up as much as herself, only to find it overrun by hoodies.
As for the guys, all we want in a cruise ship is bikini suntanning area on the main deck and clothing optional tanning on the upper deck, which unfortunately does not fit the original plans as far as I know. So this will be boring.
My cruise experience showed a bimodal distribution of ages, where about 1/3 where 20-something honeymooners like my wife and myself, and 2/3 were extreme senior citizens. I can see how they needed to wait 100 years for todays oldest cruiser who was just a kid during the original Titanic sinking to have died off.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Re:Go Ballmer! by ColdWetDog · 2012-04-30 06:17 · Score: 4, Funny

Yep, sounds like cruise ship passengers. The industry term is 'newly wed or nearly dead'.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:Go Ballmer! by DarkOx · 2012-04-30 06:42 · Score: 4, Informative

Another interesting economic question, "is the scale of Titanic" correct for the modern era?
Titanic:
Length: 882 ft 6 in
Beam: 92 ft
Costa Concordia:
Length: 952 ft 1 in
Beam: 116 ft 6 in
Queen Mary 2:
Length: 1,132 ft
Beam: 147.5 ft
As far as "upscale" goes the QM2, is probably near the top today. Even an affordable cruise is typically a bigger ship, Concordia class, than Titanic. While a Concordia is not much bigger, if you going to book some time on fancy floating palace don't you want to be on the very biggest? Was that not part of the Titanic's initial draw?

--
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Re:Go Ballmer! by sentientbeing · 2012-04-30 06:51 · Score: 5, Funny

'Of course it will sink if you put a hole in it,' Mr Palmer said in response to questions from reporters on whether the Titanic replica would sink.

Lowering the bar a bit this time, then.

--

------
beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his mind he dreams himself your master
Re:Go Ballmer! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-30 07:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

Length isn't everything.
RMS Titanic was only 46,328 gross tons (true displacement 52,310 tons). That's less than one-third the size of the QM2 (148,528 gross tons).
Titanic is a fairly small ship by today's standards. "Average" in the current market would be 60,000 to 110,000 gross tons. Ships in the 50,000 ton class are being retired or sold off at 15 years old because they aren't profitable enough compared to the big things. (Celebrity's "Horizon" and "Zenith", for example.)
(Posting AC since still at work...)
Re:Go Ballmer! by Deekin_Scalesinger · 2012-04-30 07:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

I have had a healthy amount of sex at Renaissance Faires - little known secret, the girls there are geeks! Partying geeks! I swear it's like the last days of Rome there, at least at the Maryland one...

--
"As the intrepid kobold companion continues his journey, he begins to wonder... if priests raises dead, why anybody die?
Re:Go Ballmer! by Penguinisto · 2012-04-30 07:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

Actually, you could put the nude tanning section on the roof of the First-Class Lounge., which IIRC was accessible to First Class passengers at the time. Just a thought.
OTOH, if you have ever sailed the North Atlantic, at any time of year, you'd know that no sane human being would want to wear a bikini, given the consistent high winds and relatively low temperatures (there's a reason icebergs were hanging around in that region in April, after all...)

--
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Re:Go Ballmer! by Penguinisto · 2012-04-30 07:20 · Score: 3, Informative

Dunno - given the niche appeal, and the fact that not too many folks are going to really go for a cruise on the North Atlantic otherwise, it's actually not a bad size. Bigger would mean it would likely lack rooms. Smaller would mean that you couldn't pack all the modern amenities (shops, casino, et al) into it.
That last part is a bit important - the original ship was built only to get people from one side of the ocean to the other. Nowadays, cruises are more for pleasure, where back then they were merely for transportation. Adding the things that make a cruise modern (and profitable!) such as shops and casinos are going to eat space (the original already had a gym, a spa, and a few other goodies, including the first oceangoing swimming pool).

--
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Re:Go Ballmer! by Penguinisto · 2012-04-30 07:32 · Score: 4, Interesting

Ships in the 50,000 ton class are being retired or sold off at 15 years old because they aren't profitable enough compared to the big things. (Celebrity's "Horizon" and "Zenith", for example.)
(Posting AC since still at work...)
Depends on the market... it would suck trying to run a mid-sized ship in the hot markets (Caribbean/Mexican, Alaskan, Mediterranean, etc). On the other hand, it would hold up pretty good in the lesser-traveled markets, and given the iconic design and historical cache', the North Atlantic and possibly North Sea or North American Seaboard (New England, Canada, etc) runs would serve it pretty well.

--
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Re:Go Ballmer! by mu51c10rd · 2012-04-30 07:35 · Score: 4, Funny

with at most a slight variation in rooms which you never spend any time in anyway, as I saw on my honeymoon cruise some years ago.
So you barely spent time in your room on your honeymoon? Either you're doing it wrong...or you are very creative...
Re:Go Ballmer! by geminidomino · 2012-04-30 07:36 · Score: 4, Funny

Holy crap. The entirety of Southwest Florida is a cruise ship!
It all makes so much sense, now...
Re:Go Ballmer! by hierophanta · 2012-04-30 07:47 · Score: 2

RMS Queen Mary 2 isnt even the largest - The 'Allure of The Seas' is 1,187.050 ft long and has a beam length of 213 ft but what really puts it over the top of QM2 is that it has capacity for 6000 passengers compared to just 3000 - source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_world's_largest_cruise_ships (its gross tonnage is also 225,282)
Re:Go Ballmer! by Deekin_Scalesinger · 2012-04-30 07:50 · Score: 2

Aw I don't know man - the MD one is all girls from DC that are there getting their geek on - you'd be pleasantly surprised at the amount of talent rolling around there. Do yourself a favor and check it out - Aug to Oct. You'll thank me... :)

--
"As the intrepid kobold companion continues his journey, he begins to wonder... if priests raises dead, why anybody die?
Re:Go Ballmer! by GameboyRMH · 2012-04-30 07:52 · Score: 2

Global warming man. No icebergs to crash into, so we have to make do with land masses these days :-P

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:Go Ballmer! by AK+Marc · 2012-04-30 07:54 · Score: 4, Funny

'Of course it will sink if you put a hole in it,'
How long will it last with an Italian captain?

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Go Ballmer! by REPdetec · 2012-04-30 10:21 · Score: 2

Found this awesome graphic for comparison: http://www.shipsnostalgia.com/guides/Image:QM2Titanic.png
Re:Go Ballmer! by Vintermann · 2012-04-30 21:06 · Score: 2

I'd fly on a replica Hindenburg in a heartbeat. Especially if it could be filled with helium, as it was originally designed for. But hell, I'd take my chances with hydrogen and a smoking lounge for the thrill of it.
(The US controlled the world's supply of helium, and they were worried about military uses of Zeppelins, so they wouldn't sell any to Germany at the time.)

--
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.

Does this guy say... by LostCluster · 2012-04-30 05:46 · Score: 2, Funny

I'M KING OF THE WORLD!?!

Re:Does this guy say... by ackthpt · 2012-04-30 05:58 · Score: 4, Funny

I'M KING OF THE WORLD!?!
Only when his wife lets him.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Re:Does this guy say... by lipanitech · 2012-04-30 06:47 · Score: 2

Just announce in 2016 the re-re-release of Titanic is TRUE 3D. LOL

--
http://thetechnologygeek.org/

Well, that sounds unsinkable by crazyjj · 2012-04-30 05:49 · Score: 5, Funny

but of course it will have state-of-the-art 21st Century technology and the latest navigation and safety systems

No way to sink that, then.

--
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?

Re:Well, that sounds unsinkable by Tyr07 · 2012-04-30 05:58 · Score: 4, Interesting

The design wasn't flawed, the thought that a ship was unsinkable was.
As long as they accept they face the same dangers of any other cruise ship, I assume it will have similar or better success.
Given the money, size, and importance of it, I assume they'll take extra precautions to make sure the same incident doesn't happen.
Also will likely include things like, enough life rafts for everyone.
Re:Well, that sounds unsinkable by _Shad0w_ · 2012-04-30 06:06 · Score: 2

I don't think anyone who had anything to do with the design or build of the Titanic said it was unsinkable - that was the press.
It should be noted the sister ship RMS Olympic survived until 1935 - 24 years at sea. RMS Britannic was sunk in 1916 by a German mine.

--
Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.
Re:Well, that sounds unsinkable by 0123456 · 2012-04-30 06:06 · Score: 2

As long as they accept they face the same dangers of any other cruise ship, I assume it will have similar or better success.
Similar or better than the Titanic I shouldn't be hard to do.
Or did you mean that cruise ship lying on its side that I saw out of the window of the plane I flew to Italy on recently?
Re:Well, that sounds unsinkable by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · 2012-04-30 06:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

I seem to recall that the Titanic I had state-of-the-art 20th Century technology and the latest navigation and safety systems. Just sayin'.
Re:Well, that sounds unsinkable by Tyr07 · 2012-04-30 07:21 · Score: 2

The flaw was ramming a giant iceberg.
It's no secret that Iceberg + any ship = high risk of sinking.
It was only a disaster because of the rescue efforts back in that era and the lack of life boats, as it was assumed it would not sink.
If you want to say the design was flawed for it's ability to react to emergency situations such AS sinking after said ship as begun to sink. I'd agree with you.
However there is no flaw that caused it to sink more so than any other vessal.
Re:Well, that sounds unsinkable by treeves · 2012-04-30 07:30 · Score: 2

I believe the design *was* flawed, or at least there was an issue with the materials of construction, in regard to the rivets used to hold the plates together that made up the hull.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/science/15titanic.html?pagewanted=all
and there's this which is totally a design thing:

Although the compartments were called watertight, they were actually only watertight horizontally; their tops were open and the walls extended only a few feet above the waterline [Hill, 1996]. If the transverse bulkheads (the walls of the watertight compartments that are positioned across the width of the ship) had been a few feet taller, the water would have been better contained within the damaged compartments.

http://www.writing.eng.vt.edu/uer/bassett.html

--
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
Re:Well, that sounds unsinkable by DragonWriter · 2012-04-30 08:32 · Score: 2

If you want to say the design was flawed for it's ability to react to emergency situations such AS sinking after said ship as begun to sink.
There may be an argument that the design was flawed in its maneuvering capacity to avoid, say, icebergs, given the visibility conditions that could reasonably be expected to occur on the route for which it was designed, and that, but for that design flaw, the design flaws impacting post-collision safety might not have been dramatically desmonstrated.
Re:Well, that sounds unsinkable by Teancum · 2012-04-30 16:36 · Score: 5, Informative

In fairness to the engineers of the original Titanic (and her sister ships), the "unsinkable" nature of the ship was mainly in regards to ordinary leaks and minor structural failures that may happen from time to time. A lousy pilot might damage a part of the hull, but the ship was designed to withstand that kind of general damage. There were very efficient bilge pumps and the various sections of the ship were designed to keep water out.... something that did allow the ship to stay afloat for nearly an hour after it hit the iceberg.
That there were shortcomings in the design is true as well, and something that came from the accident investigation review board that was convened after the original RMS Titanic sank. Still, it was a generally sound design that was used for the original Titanic and as noted the general design did prove to be rather successful as long as general precautions were taken. The Titanic investigation review board also set the pattern for subsequent engineering failures in the future, including the loss of both American Space Shuttles (Columbia and Challenger) as well as the failure of the Tacoma Narrows "Galloping Gertie" Bridge, and for that matter almost every major airline crash investigation. These engineering/transportation investigations usually lead to new regulations, but they also help advance the state of technology in terms of knowing what not to do... something that is sadly learned from experience more often that common sense would make you hope.
Re:Well, that sounds unsinkable by swillden · 2012-05-01 00:16 · Score: 2

Well, from what I understand is that it's manuvering capability was sufficient, the problem was a mirage like affect created by atmospheric distortion on the water, making objects appear above the horizon and far away, making the iceberg literally invisible on the silhouette of the night.
I think the bigger problem was the captain's decision to run flat out, at night, in an attempt to surprise the press by arriving ahead of schedule. Had he taken reasonable precautions and slowed down a little there would have been more time to react.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:Well, that sounds unsinkable by Binestar · 2012-05-01 00:44 · Score: 2

One thing: Based on accepted maritime rules, the Titanic had more life boats than believed to be required. No other ships at the time had more lifeboats.

--
Do you Gentoo!?

Probably strike a coral reef and sink by ackthpt · 2012-04-30 05:50 · Score: 5, Funny

Yeah, that would be hilarious. Oh, wait, the Italians beat him to it.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar

Re:Probably strike a coral reef and sink by girlintraining · 2012-04-30 06:33 · Score: 2, Interesting

No, what's hilarious is that a filthy rich guy plans on building a ship that was created during an economic downturn, filling it full of people, and then going on a long trip where... after it hits an iceberg, all the poor people will be locked below and the ship will sink, which is not in any way a parallel to today's economy where we are bailing out billionaires 'too big to fail', and setting people up for a lifetime of loan repayment and wage slavery.
Next to 'Irony' in the dictionary will be a picture of this man standing next to his ship.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie

Already Sank by yogidog98 · 2012-04-30 05:51 · Score: 4, Informative

There is already a movie (using the term loosely) about the Titanic II from 2010. Spoiler Alert: Both the ship and the movie sank.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1640571/

So, he's building a steampunk ship? by Narrowband · 2012-04-30 05:52 · Score: 4, Funny

"As close to the original as possible" with "state of the art 21st Century technology..." hmm.

Re:So, he's building a steampunk ship? by MightyYar · 2012-04-30 06:58 · Score: 3, Interesting

I think he means aesthetically...
Give it the same general shape and layout. Keep the iconic grand ballroom. Give it fake smokestacks.
But under water, give it a bulbous hull. Bow thrusters. Weld the thing together. Naturally, give it a proper rudder :)
Inside the ship, use the huge space freed up by the change in propulsion technology and the lack of demand for "steerage" to do more traditional cruise-ship things. Cabins should look old, but be brought up to modern standards... perhaps keep a few historically accurate for people who want such things.
They will probably want to make it a little bigger - the Titanic was big for it's day, but much smaller (about 1/3 the size in tonnage) of the Queen Mary 2. Mainly, it was too narrow - under 100 feet at it's widest. Queen Mary 2 is almost 150 feet wide. I think they could fatten it without giving up too much aesthetically. More room for lifeboats :)

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:So, he's building a steampunk ship? by MightyYar · 2012-04-30 08:00 · Score: 2

Even the original Titanic had a fake smokestack. A modern ship would only need a single funnel. It simply wouldn't make sense to route the exhaust through 4 funnels when a single one would suffice - especially since even the original ship had a decorative funnel.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:So, he's building a steampunk ship? by mobby_6kl · 2012-04-30 08:20 · Score: 3, Funny

But don't you know that each extra smokestack gives you 1k additional horsepower!?

I plan to build Iceberg II by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-30 05:53 · Score: 5, Funny

It'll be pretty much like the original, but with state-of-the-art 21st Century technology like pykrete to survive in more temperate waters, and the latest targeting and weapons systems.

AC for obvious reasons, MUAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!

Re:I plan to build Iceberg II by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-30 08:08 · Score: 2, Funny

OH, you should add stealth technology to it too. That would be awesome.

More lifeboats. by hessian · 2012-04-30 05:54 · Score: 4, Interesting

Just a suggestion, but this time try having lifeboat space for every passenger, not every other passenger?

As history teaches us, the reason the Titanic sinking was a disaster, and not just a misfortune was that it had enough lifeboats for the government regulations of the day, which is to say, one person-space in a lifeboat for every two passengers.

--
Futurist Traditionalism

Re:More lifeboats. by daem0n1x · 2012-04-30 05:59 · Score: 5, Funny

Are you suggesting more government regulation is the solution? What about the passengers' inalienable right to die a horrible death in the icy waters without the nanny-state commie lifeboats oppressing them? Why do you hate liberty?
Re:More lifeboats. by RogL · 2012-04-30 06:13 · Score: 2

Just a suggestion, but this time try having lifeboat space for every passenger, not every other passenger?
As history teaches us, the reason the Titanic sinking was a disaster, and not just a misfortune was that it had enough lifeboats for the government regulations of the day, which is to say, one person-space in a lifeboat for every two passengers.
Just build Titanic III at the same time, and have it cruise alongside empty.
If Titanic II starts sinking, leave the buffet, grab your luggage, stroll across the walkway to Titanic III, find your cabin (you'll keep the same cabin number) and Bob's your uncle.
Re:More lifeboats. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-30 06:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

I agree. Let the free market decide. If a company builds a ship with only enough life boats for half the people then the half of the people that die won't use that company again thereby correcting the problem.
Re:More lifeboats. by 0123456 · 2012-04-30 06:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

Suppose your liner sank in the middle of the Atlantic in 1880 and everyone got in the life boats.
Then what?
You had no radio to contact any other ships, so you're just floating around in the water with very limited supplies and little chance of rescue. Unless you were lucky and some other ship saw you sink or saw any flares you were able to launch, the odds were that you would die a slow death waiting for help.
The Titanic was probably the first such sinking where there would have been a good chance of everyone surviving if they carried enough life boats. And people learned from that.
Re:More lifeboats. by nyctopterus · 2012-04-30 06:53 · Score: 4, Interesting

Actually, the atlantic shipping lanes were quite busy (even in the 1880s), which may have been part of the problem. They saw lifeboats as ferries from one ship to another, which was expected to arrive in short order.

Max Capricorn Cruises.. by DC2088 · 2012-04-30 05:59 · Score: 4, Funny

The fastest, the furthest. The best. And I should know, because... My name is Max!

ATTENTION NON-AUSTRALIANS by Dexter+Herbivore · 2012-04-30 06:02 · Score: 5, Informative

Please understand that this guy has been attempting to manipulate Australian media coverage by trying to make crazy sounding headlines to distract from negative reports about his political allies.

What I heard... by tool462 · 2012-04-30 06:02 · Score: 3, Funny

I heard he's consulting with Abercrombie & Fitch on aesthetics and design. As I understand it, the hull will be pre-distressed and cost twice what a typical cruise ship costs.

Re:What I heard... by nyctopterus · 2012-04-30 07:01 · Score: 2

You jest, but it the hull is going to anything like the original shape, I suspect it will cost more than double that of a modern cruise ship. Modern ships are built in a modular manner, with many square bits with flat decks that are welded together. The Titanic was built old-styley, with continuously curved sides and decks. That's gonna cost some shamoolah.

Built in government-owned shipyard in China by Animats · 2012-04-30 06:04 · Score: 3, Interesting

He's having it built by a government-owned shipyard in China. One that has never built a passenger ship. Jinling builds large single-engine tankers, container ships, and RORO (roll-on, roll-off) vessels. Five shipyards in Finland, France, Italy, Germany, and South Korea build most of the passenger ships in the world, and Jinling isn't one of them.

Re:Built in government-owned shipyard in China by ColdWetDog · 2012-04-30 06:29 · Score: 3, Funny

He's having it built by a government-owned shipyard in China. One that has never built a passenger ship. Jinling builds large single-engine tankers, container ships, and RORO (roll-on, roll-off) vessels. Five shipyards in Finland, France, Italy, Germany, and South Korea build most of the passenger ships in the world, and Jinling isn't one of them.
This might not be as far fetched a decision as it first sounds.
Having experience with large Container ships and RORO's is perfect engineering practice for the dealing with the unique, shall we say, attributes, of the average American passenger.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!

This ship may very well haunt itself by l0ungeb0y · 2012-04-30 06:06 · Score: 2

There are some things so engrained in the human consciousness as bad or cursed and should not be brought up again, aside from reverence.
Making a Liner called the Titanic 2 or Dirigible called the Hindenburg Zwei only stand to bring forth such horrific notions and blatantly invite self-fulfilling prophecy.

Sure, feel free to spit and damn "superstition" all you want, there is something to be said about the imaginings of a mass consciousness that can actually have an effect, if only on a purely psychosomatic level -- but that's all it takes to sink a ship all over again.

Re:I'd rather swim by vlm · 2012-04-30 06:10 · Score: 2

Exactly how superstitious are you?

I think he's expecting the floating fail whale rather than having it sink underneath him. The "authentic dress up" crowd is going to be at the throats of the "just wanna wear my hoodie" crowd. The modern cruisers are going to be pissed off that its amenities are ancient. The traditionalists are going to be pissed off that it doesn't have genuine coal fueled steam engines and has too many lifeboats.

I would not be scared of being on board, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to be surrounded by pissed off people.

Their only hope is theme cruises. "Bubba goes boatin' cruise" where nobody dresses up, and "floating ren fair" where everyone dresses up and uses fake british accents. Mixing those two crowds is not gonna be fun.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger

Anyone notice the irony? by SailorSpork · 2012-04-30 06:11 · Score: 4, Interesting

I find it ironic that Palmer, a mining billionaire, is trying to recreate the Titanic, while the entertainment billionaire James Cameron, who has done the most in the public eye with the Titanic in the past decade or so, is using his billions to mine asteroids (and arguably is doing more to potentially advance mankind in the process).

Re:Anyone notice the irony? by dbIII · 2012-04-30 09:52 · Score: 4, Interesting

Not really when you know that he became a Billionaire due to another mining companies massive and stupid mistake (or possibly foul play), and originally became a mining millionaire by putting his inside status as a clerk in the Queensland government mines department to use (back when his boss was corrupt enough to end up doing time).
This is also the fourth such stunt he's pulled so far this year (bought himself the title of "national living treasure", announced a huge new Casino in the middle of nowhere which isn't going to happen and accused the local Green party of being run by the CIA). He's a clown that has weaseled his way around the rules and laws that other people have to abide by and really has done little more than make a huge number of lawyers (he sues a lot) and himself rich.
To sum up - Don King on a bad day is far less ridiculous.

Sir, it's an emergency! by freeze128 · 2012-04-30 06:13 · Score: 4, Funny

Call me when it's a catastrophe.

Do you suppose the steerage class wasn't meant... by swb · 2012-04-30 06:39 · Score: 2

...to use the lifeboats?

Given the classism of the era, you almost expect them to have enough spots for the passengers above a certain level but basically exclude the steerage and other lower classes from rescue.

What can possibly go wrong? by JTsyo · 2012-04-30 06:49 · Score: 2

You have the Chinese making a ship that sank. What are the odds they just copy the design without bringing it up to current standards. Though it might surpass current Chinese standards. For example:

http://www.weirdasianews.com/2010/02/05/shanghai-wonderbridge-trash-collapses/

Re:Ah... by Mercano · 2012-04-30 06:50 · Score: 3, Funny

Only from the weight of all the lead-based paint they're "not" going to use on it.

--
#include <signature.h>

Re:Do you suppose the steerage class wasn't meant. by geoffrobinson · 2012-04-30 06:52 · Score: 2

The only thing is that there were plenty of first class men who gave up their spot. Yes, losses were heavier in the steerage class.

For all of the classism of the era, there was also a "women and children first" ethic.

--
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.

Re:Will it provide the full Titanic experience? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-30 06:56 · Score: 4, Funny

Newsflash here: Women, like fine wine, get better with age. Also like fine wine, there is a point where they stop getting better and turn into vinegar.

Re:I'd rather swim by Gadget_Guy · 2012-04-30 06:59 · Score: 5, Funny

Exactly how superstitious are you?

I would estimate about thirteen times the national average, which is unfortunate.

Re:i already saw this movie by cvtan · 2012-04-30 07:12 · Score: 2

A Chinese company building a replica Titanic? What could possibly go wrong? That movie will just be re-classified as a documentary.

--
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.

Size or Style by formfeed · 2012-04-30 07:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

While a Concordia is not much bigger, if you going to book some time on fancy floating palace don't you want to be on the very biggest?

Not necessarily. Some of the fancier cruises (read - no water slides) are on smaller ships. And this should make it even simpler to reconstruct a Titanis-ish looking ship:

Take a smaller size cruise ship and get rid of all the Disney like family entertainment plastic crap.
Cover exposed parts in brass paint and fake marble.
Rent it out for steam-punk conventions.

Re:Size or Style by GameboyRMH · 2012-04-30 07:50 · Score: 2

Some of the fancier cruises (read - no water slides)
The water slide is the most fun a Slashdotter can have on a cruise ship.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

Re:Will it provide the full Titanic experience? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-30 07:24 · Score: 2, Funny

Which is delicious on fish.

Re:I'd rather swim by iamacat · 2012-04-30 07:30 · Score: 2

Have wear my hoodie crowd stay in the 3rd class. Problem solved!

too soon for a Natalie Wood joke? by Thud457 · 2012-04-30 10:00 · Score: 2

Do you suppose the steerage class wasn't meant to use the lifeboats?

Given the classism of the era, you almost expect them to have enough spots for the passengers above a certain level but basically exclude the steerage and other lower classes from rescue.

The only thing is that there were plenty of first class men who gave up their spot. Yes, losses were heavier in the steerage class.
For all of the classism of the era, there was also a "women and children first" ethic.

As opposed to our era with its "I fell off the ship" ethic.

--

the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Slashdot Mirror

Australian Billionaire Plans To Build Titanic II

71 of 289 comments (clear)