Sandy Sinks HMS Bounty, Knocks Off Gawker Websites

Huffington Post by Seeteufel · 2012-10-30 01:54 · Score: 2

And the Huffington Post is still down! I wonder what sea water flooding implies for the financial district.

Re:Huffington Post by squiggleslash · 2012-10-30 01:55 · Score: 2, Funny

And the Huffington Post is still down!

Leading to the number of complaints about slowness and memory usage at Firefox's bugzilla to be _way_ down...

I wonder what sea water flooding implies for the financial district.

That today would be a great day to float your business on the stock exchange?

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:Huffington Post by M.+Baranczak · 2012-10-30 02:05 · Score: 5, Funny

I wonder what sea water flooding implies for the financial district.
1. A brisk day of trading in derivatives based on underwater mortgages.
2. A vindication of the Saltwater school of economics.
Re:Huffington Post by Tastecicles · 2012-10-30 02:05 · Score: 2, Funny

No worries, Wall Street is replete with bailout packages. If you're a bank.

--
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Re:Huffington Post by JazzHarper · 2012-10-30 02:08 · Score: 2

I wonder what sea water flooding implies for the financial district.
NASDAQ is testing their systems, now. The exchanges do not seem to have suffered significant damage. The problem is going to be transportation; the exchanges may open tomorrow, but the markets will not be able to function properly if people can't get to their jobs in the financial district.
Re:Huffington Post by bobstreo · 2012-10-30 02:12 · Score: 2

And the Huffington Post is still down! I wonder what sea water flooding implies for the financial district.
Looks like they sort of tried on Wall Street:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/data?pid=avimage&iid=iB520MWRNVP8
Re:Huffington Post by SydShamino · 2012-10-30 02:14 · Score: 0

I wonder what sea water flooding implies for the financial district.
All the Facebook millionaires spend another white-knuckle day waiting for their stocks to sell...

--
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
Re:Huffington Post by Seeteufel · 2012-10-30 02:14 · Score: 1

I see, the flood on the Wall! Now even Google "502. That’s an error. The server encountered a temporary error and could not complete your request."
Re:Huffington Post by cruff · 2012-10-30 02:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

And the Huffington Post is still down!
And nothing of any value will be missed while it remains down.
Re:Huffington Post by Pope · 2012-10-30 02:31 · Score: 0

And nothing of value was lost.

--
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Re:Huffington Post by bluescrn · 2012-10-30 02:44 · Score: 4, Funny

"I wonder what sea water flooding implies for the financial district."

Bankers need bailing out again...
Re:Huffington Post by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 03:07 · Score: 0

Really? I thought it was left.
Re:Huffington Post by Frosty+Piss · 2012-10-30 03:53 · Score: 2

The S+P is flat today...

--
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Re:Huffington Post by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 04:12 · Score: 0

Only if the congress people you voted "in" and still vote in have anything to say, sure...remember democrats had a majority when the bailouts where being voted...keep voting them!
Re:Huffington Post by grahamm · 2012-10-30 04:26 · Score: 1

As long as (electronic) communications are working, how many of the people who work in the finance district (apart from those providing physical support, eg janitors, food vendors etc) need to actually be in their offices to work? As long as they have telephone and internet access thay can do their jobs by telecommuting.
Re:Huffington Post by WWWWolf · 2012-10-30 04:31 · Score: 0

I wonder what sea water flooding implies for the financial district.
1. A brisk day of trading in derivatives based on underwater mortgages.
2. A vindication of the Saltwater school of economics.
3. People who thought studying Economics is nothing but underwater basket-weaving thought "damn, I wish I had actually studied underwater basket-weaving instead".
Re:Huffington Post by boaworm · 2012-10-30 05:20 · Score: 1

... the markets will not be able to function properly if people can't get to their jobs in the financial district.
These people being at work seems to be the biggest problem with the market these days...

--
Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.
Aristotele
Re:Huffington Post by WheezyJoe · 2012-10-30 05:33 · Score: 0

How was this modded as "insightful"?

--
Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
Re:Huffington Post by Infernal+Device · 2012-10-30 06:09 · Score: 2

And the Huffington Post is still down!
And nothing of any value will be missed while it remains down.
Except we'll be forced to resort to Drudge for news.

--
"My God...it's full of trolls!"
Re:Huffington Post by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 06:15 · Score: 0

it's trickle down economics in practice
Re:Huffington Post by tftp · 2012-10-30 06:27 · Score: 2

As long as they have telephone and internet access thay can do their jobs by telecommuting.
There may be many reasons why that's not possible. Traders use very specialized systems (hardware and software) to do their job. Administrators have access to highly confidential information. Many IT people do not want to have it all available on the Internet, even though a well encrypted VPN may be safe enough. One concern is that they don't know who is on the other side of that VPN (who has physical access to your work computer and your work papers.) When traders work in their offices they have security that the company provides (I can't waltz into a major trading firm and look over the shoulder of a senior trader.)
There is also such thing as latency... would your firm accept a loss of $100M just because your DSL was down for a few minutes (a wet cable can do that) and you couldn't sell when the customer is screaming "Sell! Sell! Now!" into your ear. And yes, the issue of communication is also there - traders need to be highly accessible to their bosses and to their customers. A cell phone in a SHTF condition is hardly good enough.
A good telecommuting setup is complex and expensive. Often it involves dedicating a room and installing a company-provided computer there, monitors, telephones, and sometimes a dedicated Internet link. Businesses don't want to share their secrets with your kids and their buddies. A minimalist setup involves a company laptop and a VPN; but that only works in some cases. If you need a desktop with multiple monitors then the situation quickly gets expensive.
Re:Huffington Post by bkmoore · 2012-10-30 06:31 · Score: 0

At least underwater basket weavers have a business model and produce a product that has social value... underwater derivatives trader, now that's useless.
Re:Huffington Post by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 06:53 · Score: 0

They claim to be the Masters of the Universe, why cant they walk on water?
Re:Huffington Post by Tastecicles · 2012-10-30 06:54 · Score: 0

all I know is what I learned: never trust politicians. Especially politicians who use divisiveness and blame-laying to keep the People from realising that they're in it for themselves, screw everybody else, for as long as they can get away with it. That'll be all of them, then.

--
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Re:Huffington Post by ncc74656 · 2012-10-30 07:02 · Score: 2

And the Huffington Post is still down!

...and nothing of value was lost. :-P

--
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Re:Huffington Post by sumdumass · 2012-10-30 09:01 · Score: 2

It was either a mod making a mistake or someone who agreed that huff post is a lot of biased drivel. Why are you surprised or upset?
Re:Huffington Post by cffrost · 2012-10-31 07:04 · Score: 1

And the Huffington Post is still down!
...and nothing of value was lost. :-P
Ah hahaha, comedy gold! How do you come up with this stuff? :D
Oh, I see...

--
Thank you, Edward Snowden.

"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan

last post by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 01:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

for the good cap'n.

but what they were doing bobbing around in the path of frankenstorm i don't know.

Re:last post by Tastecicles · 2012-10-30 02:06 · Score: 1

probably trying to avoid the storm surge...

--
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Re:last post by CimmerianX · 2012-10-30 02:08 · Score: 3, Informative

It's very dangerous for a ship to be in port for a storm like this. Getting out to sea and out of it's path is the proper course of action. It just couldn't get out from in front of it's path quickly enough. And unlike newer ships that can withstand storms, a tallship like that didn't stand a chance.
Re:last post by v1 · 2012-10-30 02:20 · Score: 2

but what they were doing bobbing around in the path of frankenstorm i don't know.
You've got very little if any control over where your boat goes in a storm like that. If you're anywhere near the coast, there's very good odds you're going to end up on the rocks. (or in the street, or on top of the building, etc) Just look at the tsunami in japan, all the boats that were shoved inland.
Best thing they can do is get the boat out as far as possible away from anything it can get tossed into. But for a ship of that design, it's got such a high profile and poor waterproofing topside that it's also in serious danger from high winds and tall waves.
Anchored in port, it was a goner for sure. It at least had a (small) chance being out to sea. I don't understand why they didn't set sail sooner, even with a tow to speed it up.

--
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Re:last post by BenJury · 2012-10-30 02:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

Safer for the ship to be at sea instead of docked, safer for the crew to be docked rather than at sea...

--
Blatant Advert: Android Apps!
Re:last post by vlm · 2012-10-30 02:42 · Score: 2

I don't understand why they didn't set sail sooner, even with a tow to speed it up.
This is what sunk them. Safest place to be when a hurricane smashes into your home port, is 500 miles away on a sunny beach sipping a margarita. Even just 150 miles off to the side in a really bad rainstorm is better than right in the path of the hurricane.
I've personally done this on a much smaller scale with thunderstorms on a sailboat. Both the distances and warning times are shorter by about the same fraction.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Re:last post by Panaflex · 2012-10-30 02:45 · Score: 4, Informative

According to news reports, the engine broke down and they were not able to repair in time.

--
I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
Re:last post by v1 · 2012-10-30 03:13 · Score: 1

According to news reports, the engine broke down and they were not able to repair in time.
Gotta love it when your sailboat suffers an engine breakdown... (I wonder if any of their crew even knew how to operate sails?)
But like I said before, they should have had a tug or some other vessel helping them out. I wonder if there were any naval destroyers or other military vessels hanging around that could have tossed them a rope?

--
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Re:last post by iamhassi · 2012-10-30 03:20 · Score: 1

Could be the other vessels were busy with other boats, or maybe they didn't know the engine was bad until it was too late to call other vessels for help since I'm sure they were all heading out to sea too

--
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
Re:last post by Synerg1y · 2012-10-30 03:22 · Score: 1

I wonder if this has anything to do with the ship being a replica, and the crew probably working for Disney :)
Re:last post by Ogive17 · 2012-10-30 03:25 · Score: 2

From what I read earlier, sounds like the ship was doing fine (given the circumstances) until the generator went out and they were no longer able to pump water out from the hull.

Even though it was a replica, I've always loved that style of ship. It's especially sad that 1, possibly 2, crew members lost their life.

--
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
Re:last post by H0p313ss · 2012-10-30 03:58 · Score: 2

I don't understand why they didn't set sail sooner, even with a tow to speed it up.
This is what sunk them. Safest place to be when a hurricane smashes into your home port, is 500 miles away on a sunny beach sipping a margarita. Even just 150 miles off to the side in a really bad rainstorm is better than right in the path of the hurricane.
I've personally done this on a much smaller scale with thunderstorms on a sailboat. Both the distances and warning times are shorter by about the same fraction.
Right, so why was he sailing to Florida? If it had been me I'd have been running her northeast *away from the storm* as fast as I could go.

--
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
Re:last post by Sun.Jedi · 2012-10-30 04:15 · Score: 1

Up is Down.
Re:last post by White+Yeti · 2012-10-30 04:23 · Score: 2

The Bounty was on its way to a long-planned winter home in Galveston. I'm guessing they hurried to leave early, just not early enough.
Re:last post by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 04:45 · Score: 0

Yes. Bounty is a fantastic ship and her crew even more so.
http://gypsyblondereport.blogspot.com/2012/10/tall-ship-sailing-aboard-hms-bounty.html
L. Jaye Bell
Re:last post by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 04:47 · Score: 0

But for a ship of that design, it's got such a high profile and poor waterproofing topside that it's also in serious danger from high winds and tall waves.
You can see in some pictures, though that all three topmasts (and topgallants), the jibbom, courses, and gaffs have all been carried away. Basically, anything off deck that had canvas attached broke. Even with an auxiliary engine, that would really cripple steerage, but wouldn't necessarily be fatal.
Properly battened, the topsides can be very resistant to flooding. It's a wooden hull, though, and will always have water seeping in. Faster as the hull flexes more in rough water. Losing the generator and bilge pumps would be pretty catastrophic.
Re:last post by rhsanborn · 2012-10-30 05:14 · Score: 1

In really high winds, the sails are there just to keep you pointed in the right direction while you ride out the storm.
Re:last post by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 06:04 · Score: 0

The generator and as backup the engines were needed to keep the ship dry enough, not for moving or steering (perse, it's always nice though in a storm). another thing is that sailing a tall-ship into a storm is pretty labor intensive and this was a movie-prop, so it wasn't originally built to sail easily.
The problem seems to be that both the generator and its backup died or that the backup wasn't really a backup.
Re:last post by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 06:27 · Score: 0

Bounty is a fantastic ship
was
Re:last post by PortHaven · 2012-10-30 06:29 · Score: 2

To concur and re-emphasize... sails in a storm like that become shreddeds ribbons. At most you'd run a single jib of mizzen sail, and that likely reefed, in order to keep the vessel bow/stern to waves.
The problem is that the ship was taking on water, and with the engine/generator down. There was no way to pump it out. Ships like this of old had a full compliment of crew. (ie: 50-100). That's because they were working vessels. And many of those crews were used to perform a variety of tasks. Modern day vessels often use less, because of technology. (You don't need 40 men to run the bilge pumps manually on infinite 4 hour shifts. A Ford diesel will do it.
With the diesel dead, there water could not be controlled.
Re:last post by tftp · 2012-10-30 06:35 · Score: 1

In really high winds, the sails are there just to keep you pointed in the right direction
In really high winds, the sails are not even there.
Re:last post by Fox_1 · 2012-10-30 06:51 · Score: 3, Interesting

The Bounty left port a week before the storm. The captain's stated intention was to skirt around/through the storm and head south. Let me repeat. The captain intentionally sailed into Sandy.
There was a plenty of warning of the scale and scope of this storm before the Bounty left port. This wasn't a case of it being caught unprepared in harbour with a hurricane bearing down on it trying to get to sea. This captain made a decision to put this ship into incredible danger. A ship which is 400 years out of date in technology and used as a school ship to teach sailing.
This was not the right decision.

--
The rock, the vulture, and the chain
Re:last post by rhsanborn · 2012-10-30 07:08 · Score: 1

Most boats keep some sort of storm sail on board to put up in those extreme wind situations. It gives you a little bit of control and ability to point the boat and keep the boat from getting sideways to the waves.

they cant say by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 01:55 · Score: 0

no power,no internet. how can they access slashdot?

Re:they cant say by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 02:03 · Score: 0

no power,no internet. how can they access slashdot?
Using IPoAC, of course.
Re:they cant say by r1348 · 2012-10-30 02:07 · Score: 1

IP over Air Currents?
Re:they cant say by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 02:15 · Score: 0

The throughput during a hurricane rocks!
Re:they cant say by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 05:48 · Score: 0

Unfortunately, there's a lot of packet loss, and it all goes pear shaped when the wind blows down the receiver.

It is horrible by MyLongNickName · 2012-10-30 01:56 · Score: 4, Funny

I have no way of getting on the internet.

--
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year

Re:It is horrible by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 01:58 · Score: 0

*SMACK*
Re:It is horrible by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 02:07 · Score: 1

I have no way of getting on the internet.
*SMACK*
Low-flying "whoosh" misjudged its height and hit you in the face instead?
Re:It is horrible by iamhassi · 2012-10-30 03:21 · Score: 1

I have no way of getting on the internet.
*SMACK*
Low-flying "whoosh" misjudged its height and hit you in the face instead?
Hurricane redirected the whoosh

--
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
Re:It is horrible by wvmarle · 2012-10-30 04:54 · Score: 2

Who needs the Internet when you have Slashdot?
Re:It is horrible by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 09:13 · Score: 0

That's why I have a backup internet in my basement.
Re:It is horrible by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 19:04 · Score: 0

Test

End climate silence by FriendlyLurker · 2012-10-30 01:57 · Score: 0, Offtopic

The “Fossil-Fueled Storm” Calls for an Immediate Crash Course on Climate Change... http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/10/a-fossil-fueled-storm-calls-for-an-immediate-crash-course-on-climate-change.html

Re:End climate silence by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 02:06 · Score: 4, Funny

The “Fossil-Fueled Storm” Calls for an Immediate Crash Course on Climate Change...
Wasn't the storm powered by a combination of solar and hydro?
Re:End climate silence by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 02:09 · Score: 0

I think the point being made is the absolute silence on the topic of climate change in the election debate...
Re:End climate silence by dkleinsc · 2012-10-30 02:10 · Score: 2

That was caused by those crazy "green energy" nutjobs demanding that hurricanes be generated using entirely renewable energy (don't ignore wind as well as solar and hydro). They should have stuck with good old coal, oil, natural gas, or maybe nuclear power to create hurricanes.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
Re:End climate silence by geekoid · 2012-10-30 02:18 · Score: 1

hydro didn't power it, the energy in the form of 'heat' powered it.
You're statement would be like saying Gas and roads power cars.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:End climate silence by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 02:29 · Score: 0

Humans are part of the equation, but there are much larger forces at work which we do not have the power to alter.
http://notrickszone.com/2011/09/12/manmade-co2-causing-atmospheric-changes-on-all-9-planets/
This is not an attempt to excuse psychopathic leadership of governments and corporations. They are criminals and we could be living far, far more effectively on our host planet. But we are not the prime cause of climate change. Ignoring this, pretending that we have more power than we really do is an anthropocentric evasion.
Re:End climate silence by SternisheFan · 2012-10-30 02:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

So , man-made climate change was the cause of Hurricane Sandy? Are you kidding me?!!! Sandy is the 75 year cycle storm that was overdue, last one was in 1938. It's a natural weather phenomena, and has nothing to do with humanity's doings.
Re:End climate silence by ColdWetDog · 2012-10-30 02:51 · Score: 1

The Atlantic is running an short article on some old newsreels from previous NE Hurricanes (1935, 1955 and 1969).
Most interesting....

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:End climate silence by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 03:01 · Score: 0

"Sandy In Your Eye: Global Insurers Call BS On Climate Deniers"
Re:End climate silence by FriendlyLurker · 2012-10-30 03:14 · Score: 5, Informative

...Sandy blows all the historic stats out of the water, including 1938 hurricane Bellport. Calls bullshit on the "75 year cycle storm" theory - where is the data to back that up?

While a couple of hurricane landfalls in Florida have produced pressures in this range, most cities in the Northeast have never reached such values, as is evident in this state-by-state roundup. The region’s lowest pressure on record occurred with the 1938 hurricane at Bellport, Long Island (946 hPa).
Re:End climate silence by TheMathemagician · 2012-10-30 03:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

Notsureifserious.jpg but there is no "75 year cycle" pattern in the Earth's weather.
Re:End climate silence by toddestan · 2012-10-30 14:17 · Score: 1

What do you mean overdue? If it's a 75-year cycle and the last one was in 1938 it's pretty much right on time.

Missing? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 02:00 · Score: 5, Funny

Yeah, sure, the Captain of the HMS Bounty is "missing" because of a "hurricane".

We've heard that one before.

Re:Missing? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 06:12 · Score: 0

MR CHRISTINAAAANNN !!!!!

Missing Captain by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · 2012-10-30 02:01 · Score: 3, Funny

and the Captain still missing.

You'll find him adrift on the ship's boat somewhere in the Pacific I expect.

--
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash

Re:Missing Captain by niado · 2012-10-30 02:24 · Score: 1

Time for a Men Against the Sea movie reboot.
Re:Missing Captain by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · 2012-10-30 04:17 · Score: 1

Won't someone think of the breadfruit?

HMS Bounty by dkleinsc · 2012-10-30 02:01 · Score: 2

The latest news I find says 14 of 16 crew rescued, one drowned, and the Captain still missing.

The captain is missing ... perhaps somebody mutinied?

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/

Re:HMS Bounty by crazyjj · 2012-10-30 02:05 · Score: 1

The part of Fletcher Christian will now be played by Tom Hardy.

--
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Re:HMS Bounty by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 02:28 · Score: 2, Interesting

The woman who dies was decended from Fletcher Christian, and Capt. Robin still hasn't been found. Those of us who live and work on these boats are still hoping to find a long loved and respected member of our community. As far as the Captain's experience, the coast guard went to him for the sail training program for the Eagle.
Re:HMS Bounty by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 02:31 · Score: 0

The original only lasted six years: 1784 to 1790. The recreated Bounty lasted for 50 years, and died at sea. That is quite a resume for a working vessel.
Due to Nordhoff and Hall, Bligh got first a terrible reputation, and then a heroic one. Both reputations are exaggerated. Bligh was a man of his times, and those times were cruel to both men and ships alike.
Unlike a recent cruise ship captain that shall go unmentioned, this captain appears to have gone down with his ship. From all accounts, he was an amazing seaman, and a good person. He was no Bligh, but then again, neither was Bligh.
RIP
Re:HMS Bounty by vlm · 2012-10-30 02:49 · Score: 1

The latest news I find says 14 of 16 crew rescued, one drowned, and the Captain still missing.
The captain is missing ... perhaps somebody mutinied?
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. The problem was Kirk self destructed the enterprise while the klingon boarding crew was aboard. The captain is in the volcano. Yes, if you look close as a joke the starfleet crew did rename the BoP "The Bounty". By far the strangest part of the movie plot was how starfleet kind of abandoned them on Vulcan. Sure you stole/borrowed and then destroyed a ship, then almost started a war, then hung around an exploding planet, then stole a klingon ship, then resurrected a dead starfleet officer, but aside from all that ya' all just take your shore leave on vulcan and head on home when ya see fit to come home. WTF?

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Re:HMS Bounty by MightyMartian · 2012-10-30 04:20 · Score: 3, Interesting

One bit of Bligh's reputation is secure. He was one helluva a seaman. There are damned few sailors in history who could have accomplished what he managed to do; sailing and navigating a launch with eighteen loyal crewmen 3,600 nautical miles to Timor with only one casualty (from a native attack). It is one of the great feats of maritime history.
I think most historians long ago centered most of the blame on Fletcher Christian. As you say, Bligh was a man of his times, and in those days, where you might spend a year or longer at sea, if you did not maintain absolute discipline, it was likely no one would ever see home again.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:HMS Bounty by mrbester · 2012-10-30 04:48 · Score: 1

Starfleet wouldn't have known they were on Vulcan unless they were told by Sarek, who was on Vulcan at the time. As far as Starfleet was concerned (if they even knew, Kirk was unlikely to file a flight plan) the Enterprise had been lost with all hands near the (known to be unstable and likely to explode) Genesis Planet.
Sarek did then travel to Earth before the probe got there, but probably wasn't asked "hey, seen Kirk lately?". Even if he was he would obfuscate as Spock was still rehabilitating and he knew his son would need his friends near him. The needs of the one outweighed the needs of the court martial.

--
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
Re:HMS Bounty by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 05:16 · Score: 0

The latest news I find says 14 of 16 crew rescued, one drowned, and the Captain still missing.
The captain is missing ... perhaps somebody mutinied?
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. The problem was Kirk self destructed the enterprise while the klingon boarding crew was aboard. The captain is in the volcano. Yes, if you look close as a joke the starfleet crew did rename the BoP "The Bounty"
Pretty sure OP was referring to the original seagoing HMS Bounty, whose crew mutinied against its captain and "went native" near Tahiti, and not the Star Trek version. Only on Slashdot could someone invert such an assumption.

By far the strangest part of the movie plot was how starfleet kind of abandoned them on Vulcan. Sure you stole/borrowed and then destroyed a ship, then almost started a war, then hung around an exploding planet, then stole a klingon ship, then resurrected a dead starfleet officer, but aside from all that ya' all just take your shore leave on vulcan and head on home when ya see fit to come home. WTF?
Starfleet's reasoning is never made clear, but I always figured that Vulcan had granted them some kind of asylum, Spock's father being the ambassador and all, and thus there was some sort of diplomatic stalemate as long as they were on Vulcan. The legal/political relationship between Starfleet and Federation member planets has always been kind of loose and murky.
Re:HMS Bounty by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 06:08 · Score: 0

Vulcan had granted political asylum. They had to decide whether or not to accept it.
Re:HMS Bounty by FatLittleMonkey · 2012-10-30 06:53 · Score: 1

Wouldn't that be like California offering asylum to a group of US Navy officers who stole a US warship? (Which they sailed to an unstable new-created volcanic island in the South Pacific to rescue a stranded, and officially presumed dead, colleague, battled a Russian sub crew which was trying to claim the island, destroyed their own (US) ship in a clever plan that left them in control of the Russian sub, which they sailed to California to return the recovered crew-mate to his family.)

--
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
Re:HMS Bounty by sumdumass · 2012-10-30 09:51 · Score: 1

No. California is part of a Union- Not a Federation. A federation does not necessarily surrender sovereignty which California has done at least in part. They simply agree to be bound by common goals and work together to further those goals. The differences between a federation and Union were put to a test in the US during the civil war.
On the other hand, rethink California as England or Mexico and you would have a more apt comparison.
Re:HMS Bounty by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 11:57 · Score: 0

The point of a combination word like "HELLUVA" is that you don't need to also add the words it is a combination of. Helluva a seaman ...one word too many!
Re:HMS Bounty by MightyMartian · 2012-10-30 12:28 · Score: 1

Do you get paid to critique grammar?

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:HMS Bounty by FatLittleMonkey · 2012-10-31 02:00 · Score: 1

I considered the UK. But NATO isn't a single unified force like Starfleet. If it was, then that would be a better example.
Even then, all NATO members have strong extradition treaties. (To the point that you can be extradited from your country of birth, to a nation you've never been to, to face charges for activities that are not illegal in your own country. As has happened in the UK.) So I doubt that the UK could offer political amnesty to a rogue US Navy crew even if it wanted to, no matter how daring the rescue of a beloved UK citizen. You would think the same would apply to Star Trek's Federation worlds. After all, the characters do speak of "Federation law".
Also, in most countries in which the US has military bases, or holds exercises, they have a deal where any crimes committed by their personnel while on foreign soil are adjudicated by US military courts, not local civilian courts. (For example, here in Australia.) It's hard to imagine members of a Federation having a lesser agreement for members of a united Federation-wide military force.
[IANAL, IDNPAL-on-Star-Trek.]

--
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
Re:HMS Bounty by sumdumass · 2012-10-31 09:14 · Score: 1

Mexico is not in NATO either. It isn't that NATO is the same as the united federation, it's the allies and alliances are more similar to the UN. In fact, the federation charter was sort of modeled after the UN charter.
And yet McKinnon and Assange are still in the UK and have not been extradited to the US or Sweden. Allies do not need to be in a formal group to be a federation. A federation is more or less an association to a common goal. The biggest difference might be something along the lines of the hundreds of years of working together as allies and treaties outside the federation. But think more along the lines of the UN then NATO.

dual story requires dual comment by slashmydots · 2012-10-30 02:03 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Did it affect you?

Huffington post being down? No. Nonstop coverage of something that doesn't affect me? Yes, because I couldn't watch real news. Last time power was out in my area for 1.5 days, I got a spare battery, 200W inverter, and watched TV while also operating my gaming laptop. Oh and I ate everything in the fridge, lol. Such excitement! Such drama! I'm surprised CNN didn't cover me, lol. Here in Wisconsin, we'd be outside tailgating in a class 1 storm. New York needs to get the hell over themselves and stop pretending the rest of the country cares that much about their weather.

As for the boat, I'm no sailing expert but don't you typically not take low tech replicas of old ships sailing in a hurricane?

Re:dual story requires dual comment by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 02:08 · Score: 0

If you live in Wisconsin, you've never experienced anything even remotely close to this. Trust me, aside from the occasional tornado, the weather in the upper midwest is about as tame as it is anywhere in the country. It's easy to be flippant about it when your home, job, and family are not being threatened. I'd suggest you need to get over yourself.
Re:dual story requires dual comment by bondsbw · 2012-10-30 02:20 · Score: 1

It goes to show that these major broadcast networks prioritize their city or area.
They always have, but it is more noticeable when they call this "the Perfect Storm" or a "superhurricane" or whatever. Well... no, it's not. Perhaps it's the worst that NYC has seen in decades, but it was only a category 1.
Near the Gulf, we expect such a storm to directly impact us once every couple of years. The New York networks make mention of those storms during the weather segment, but then they'll go back and spend half an hour talking about Lady Gaga.
I have been watching Good Morning America this morning, and they haven't moved off the weather situation once. In Alabama, we had tornadoes last year that killed hundreds and destroyed thousands of homes, entire city blocks being leveled throughout the state. They talked about it for maybe 5 minutes, if that.

--
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
Re:dual story requires dual comment by oodaloop · 2012-10-30 02:22 · Score: 1

Nonstop coverage of something that doesn't affect me? Yes, because I couldn't watch real news.
By all means, please tell us what other news doesn't affect you, so we can remove it from the world's news post haste!

Here in Wisconsin, we'd be outside tailgating in a class 1 storm.
Yes, I imagine you get quite a few class 1 HURRICANES in Wisconsin, don't you? And the class just refers to the speed of the wind, not the size or how long it lasts. This is an extremely powerful storm, which would explain why all the weather forecasters say not to pay attention to what class this one is.

As for the boat, I'm no sailing expert but don't you typically not take low tech replicas of old ships sailing in a hurricane?
I'd hate to let the mere fact that you don't know anything about boats keep you from judging people who do, but maybe the fact that all the boat owners in the world didn't consult with you beforehand should be an indicator. As other slashdaughters have pointed out, keeping your boat in dock can be very dangerous. So many people took their boats out to sea to weather the storm. But this being a very powerful storm (see above), some didn't do so well. It could be have been worse in port though.

--
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
Re:dual story requires dual comment by compro01 · 2012-10-30 02:39 · Score: 1

As for the boat, I'm no sailing expert but don't you typically not take low tech replicas of old ships sailing in a hurricane?
When they set sail, this storm wasn't expected to be anywhere near them. It was expected to trash Cuba and Haiti, then wander off west into empty ocean.
It wasn't until Thursday that the forecast showed it headed for New Jersey.

--
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Re:dual story requires dual comment by compro01 · 2012-10-30 02:44 · Score: 1

Wander off east, rather.

--
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Re:dual story requires dual comment by Molt · 2012-10-30 02:47 · Score: 2

It couldn't have been worse in port- the ship's been lost and at least one member of the crew has died. In port the ship could have been destroyed but the crew would have been on land, away from the ship, and safe.

--
404 Not Found: No such file or resource as '.sig'
Re:dual story requires dual comment by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 02:56 · Score: 0

Uhh, we predicted the exact path of this storm last Monday, nearly a full week before it hit. As for the Bounty, reports are that something went wrong with the generators. They do have internal propulsion, but without power that was lost -- as well as the ability to pump water out.
Re:dual story requires dual comment by wonkey_monkey · 2012-10-30 03:18 · Score: 1

Nonstop coverage of something that doesn't affect me? Yes, because I couldn't watch real news.
How much of that "real news" actually does affect you?

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Re:dual story requires dual comment by compro01 · 2012-10-30 03:23 · Score: 2

Uhh, we predicted the exact path of this storm last Monday, nearly a full week before it hit.
Who is "we"? The NHC's predicted track showed it headed for Bermuda until Wednesday.

--
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Re:dual story requires dual comment by bws111 · 2012-10-30 04:07 · Score: 1

Well, if you and your idiot tailgating buddies were in Atlantic City, you would have been under 8 feet of water. If you were in Queens, it would only have been 3 feet of water, but you would at least be nice and toasty because your and 79 of your neighbors houses were on fire. If it was lower Manhatten, I am sure that the little 13 foot storm surge (highest ever recorded) would not have fazed you at all. And the 700 ton tanker that wound up on a street in Staten Island - I am sure that happens all the time in Wisconsin. And who needs little things like power (especially if you happen to live 50 stories up)? And I hope you were planning on walking (or more likely swimming) to your tailgate, because the entire transportation system is shut down.
What exactly do you consider 'real news'?
Re:dual story requires dual comment by Sun.Jedi · 2012-10-30 04:27 · Score: 1

But this being a very powerful storm (see above), some didn't do so well. It could be have been worse in port though.
How many people would have been put in harms way if the boat had stayed in port
Re:dual story requires dual comment by DarkOx · 2012-10-30 05:17 · Score: 1

Wrong. It could have been worse. This thing is 230~ tons of timber! You don't think it being busted up in port would have destroyed not just the ship but whatever it was tied too, or other vessels near it? If its just the loss of life bothering you what about all the added flying debris (which often kills in hurricanes) such an even might result in?
I am not saying that any of these things would have happened but they could have just like going to sea could have resulting in everything being just fine. I am saying you don't fully understand the subject and the considerations around it. This ship was big and heavy and the storm, category 1 though it may be, is large and powerful. There is plenty of potential for calamity not matter what you do.

--
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Re:dual story requires dual comment by bws111 · 2012-10-30 05:31 · Score: 1

Well, for comparison, there was a 700 tanker ship which was in port, broke free, and wound up a mile away on a street in Staten Island. The fact that no-one got hurt from that is pretty amazing.
Re:dual story requires dual comment by Arashi256 · 2012-10-30 06:01 · Score: 1

That's nothing. The storm in NYC is headline news....in England. I mean, *seriously*?

Mighty Con Ed transformer explosion by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 02:03 · Score: 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seMaLEqotUw - Transformer explosion at Consolidated Edison, Manhattan.
Seems like the vid may be looping. One hell of a flash though.

Re:Mighty Con Ed transformer explosion by FireFury03 · 2012-10-30 02:27 · Score: 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seMaLEqotUw - Transformer explosion at Consolidated Edison, Manhattan.
Seems like the vid may be looping. One hell of a flash though.
The BBC reported it as "a powerstation has exploded!"... Way to go for headline-grabbing misinformation (especially after the unfounded fearmongering over nuclear power stations potentially going to melt down that's been going on...)

--
http://blog.nexusuk.org
Re:Mighty Con Ed transformer explosion by Daetrin · 2012-10-30 03:10 · Score: 0

Did you not watch the video? Or are you nitpicking some particularly technical definition of "explosion" that you don't think the event quite met? Because it sure looked like an explosion to me.

--
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Re:Mighty Con Ed transformer explosion by FireFury03 · 2012-10-30 03:21 · Score: 2

Did you not watch the video? Or are you nitpicking some particularly technical definition of "explosion" that you don't think the event quite met? Because it sure looked like an explosion to me.
I'm nitpicking that transformer != powerstation.

--
http://blog.nexusuk.org
Re:Mighty Con Ed transformer explosion by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 06:00 · Score: 0

From the looks of that video, this wasn't one of those little, pole-mounted transformers. It was one (possibly more) of the *big* ones that they use at power stations and sub-stations to ramp down and distribute the high-voltage power sent from the power plant.
You see, while 'transformer' != 'power station', 'power station' *also* != 'power plant'.
I wouldn't have mentioned it, but if you're going to nit-pick, you should at least be sure to get your complaint correct.

WTF were they even doing at sea? by crazyjj · 2012-10-30 02:07 · Score: 1, Insightful

The original HMS Bounty didn't have the benefit of knowing a week in advance when a hurricane was coming. This one did. WTF were they even at sea for? Unless this was a suicide run, that was pretty fucking stupid.

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

Re:WTF were they even doing at sea? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 02:14 · Score: 0

Safer for a ship to be at sea than in port where it will smashed against the dock and washed ashore. Ship like that however isn't very fast so even with warning they were still in danger.
Re:WTF were they even doing at sea? by drinkypoo · 2012-10-30 02:15 · Score: 1

This is what I came in here to say, too. They had lots of time to get the hell out of the whole damned region.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:WTF were they even doing at sea? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 02:15 · Score: 1

Their Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/HMSBounty says "A SHIP IS SAFER AT SEA THAN IN PORT!"
Hindsight is, of course, 20/20.
Re:WTF were they even doing at sea? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 02:16 · Score: 1

The original HMS Bounty didn't have the benefit of knowing a week in advance when a hurricane was coming. This one did. WTF were they even at sea for? Unless this was a suicide run, that was pretty fucking stupid.
Is it as stupid as some moron who merely knows how to use a computer thinking that he's qualified to give an opinion on how to run a ship? In any case, you could RTFA and your question would have been answered.
Re:WTF were they even doing at sea? by SydShamino · 2012-10-30 02:16 · Score: 1

Safer at sea than at port - though I saw mention that they were in dry dock very recently, which might be safer than either other option. The stupider part though was that they didn't sail due East to get away from the storm, but instead tried to sail South towards their destination in Florida (after going only a little bit East to try to avoid the storm).

--
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
Re:WTF were they even doing at sea? by Nidi62 · 2012-10-30 02:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

Ships are designed to be at sea, not alongside a dock. In severe storms, boats are often able to more easily weather a storm in the open water than at a dock or in shallow water, where they are likely to bump into things, which rarely ends well for the ship. From what I understand, the Bounty was out and trying to skirt along the edge of the storm, but the waves were so high that they took on too much water. The whole crew had on life jackets and survival suits, but the Captain and th sailor that drowned were swept overbaord while getting on a life raft. So they were prepared to ditch.
And for an example of why being at sea is better, Good Morning America showed footage this morning of a tanker that had been tied of at a dock in New York. The storm broke it free, carried it several miles, and beached it to where about half of it is on land. This was a modern ship with a metal hull, but it's safe to assume the hull took at least some damage when it beached. Now imagine what would have happened to a larg wooden hulled vessel that got smashed up against it's pier, or beached on some rocks.

--
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Re:WTF were they even doing at sea? by SydShamino · 2012-10-30 02:18 · Score: 2

Safer for the ship, of course, not the crew.

--
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
Re:WTF were they even doing at sea? by DarkOx · 2012-10-30 02:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

The original bounty would have pumps that would have been operated manually by gangs of sailors. Wood hauled ships of that type are pretty much in a constant state of sinking, you must pump the bilge.
The replica bounty was equipped only with electric pumps They had some kind of generator failure and could not run them.
What were they doing at sea. Its pretty much SOP of an ocean going vessel of any significant size to put to see ahead of storm. I hope its obvious to you why being anchor in heavy sees would be a problem. Since you can't be tied up you don't want to be anywhere near shallow water or anything like pier, rock, other ship, etc you might be pushed against.
So what you generally do is you try to sail out into deep open water, and avoid the storm as much as possible. This is the safest thing to do for the ship. Obviously you don't head strait into the storm, but this thing was so big they could not easily avoid even the worst of it; given their best possible speed.
So yes the original HMS Bounty and her crew probably would have survived this storm, although its likely some top men would have been killed trying to reef sails in heavy wind and sea. The replica with her mechanical dependencies and crew we value more than the vessel was not up to it.

--
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Re:WTF were they even doing at sea? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 02:19 · Score: 0

It was docked you maroon, where are you going to move a ship like that quickly anyway the other ports equally stricken on the Eastern seaboard?
All the men and material for maintaining the ship are in her home port, it's tragic that she's down for now but she'll be back.
Re:WTF were they even doing at sea? by jsh1972 · 2012-10-30 02:22 · Score: 1

seagoing vessels are often safer at anchor than staying at the dock and being battered by the storm surge and left beached. I live in southeast texas, and i remember during hurricane rita seeing large 100 yard long barges on dry land 3/4 mile from the waterfont.
Re:WTF were they even doing at sea? by vlm · 2012-10-30 02:34 · Score: 3, Interesting

WTF were they even at sea for?
Ships (usually) move a lot faster than houses, so you simply sail out of the way... unless you have an equipment failure during the escape. Then you sink/die of course, because suddenly you're stationary. Its almost impossible to sink a boat that's underway in the modern radio era, even if its an ancient replica. Safest place to be when a hurricane is on the way is on a ship, because in about 12 to 24 hours you'll be somewhere sunny and pleasant instead of in a hurricane, and if you get a couple days warning that is not too difficult to get 12 hours away... I used to get endless shit from landlubbers when I was serious contemplating doing the liveaboard sailboat thing about hurricanes "What'll you do when a hurricane hits your harbor" "Probably drinking a margarita sitting on a sunny beach 300 miles away, what are you going to be doing when a hurricane hits your home city?" "Grr..."
I was a real small time sailboat sailor but even I know their "killer" (literally) mistake was not traveling in a convoy. So the mainmast snaps off or you spring a hopeless leak, who cares, everyone move from boat #4 to boat #27 and we'll continue along the way. Its more fun to sail in a group of friends anyway. Probably they were too scared of low visibility to escape in a group, if the odds of collision are 2% in heavy seas and dense fog, and the odds of sinking are 0.001% then you go it alone. In slashdot IT terms this is a Redundant Array of Inexpensive (LOL) Sailboats, but if its foggy you'll get massive filesystem corruption.
In all honesty quite a few "killed by hurricane" stories are REALLY "killed during hurricane" stories that have nothing to do with the weather, they'd be just as dead without the storm. Very few sailors are killed by hurricanes compared to landlubbers I'd feel much safer on a boat than on land.
Until they come out with a formal report we won't know what happened, but I'm guessing they were doing a hell of a lot better than the landlubbers until something very critical failed in an unanticipated manner.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Re:WTF were they even doing at sea? by DerekLyons · 2012-10-30 02:45 · Score: 1

During a storm, ships are far safer at sea than in port. However, it appears they went south/southwest trying to cut inside the storm's track... when they probably should have gone northeast. (But I don't know what may have been waiting for them in the North Atlantic. It can be nasty this time of year.)
Re:WTF were they even doing at sea? by compro01 · 2012-10-30 02:57 · Score: 1

The stupider part though was that they didn't sail due East to get away from the storm, but instead tried to sail South towards their destination in Florida (after going only a little bit East to try to avoid the storm).
Until Thursday, the storm was expected to go East off into the Atlantic after wrecking Cuba and Haiti. It was until the 11am Thursday forecast that it was expected to make landfall in New Jersey. At the speed they would be going and given how damn big Sandy is, I don't think going East at that point would have made any difference except putting them further from help.

--
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Re:WTF were they even doing at sea? by mcgrew · 2012-10-30 03:12 · Score: 1

The original HMS Bounty didn't have the benefit of knowing a week in advance when a hurricane was coming. This one did. WTF were they even at sea for?
As the captain said and every single news article about it quotes him, in a hurricane a ship is safer at sea than in port. They were trying to get the ship out of harm's way, but this hurricane was WAY bigger than most, 2000 miles wide.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:WTF were they even doing at sea? by crazyjj · 2012-10-30 03:32 · Score: 1

Safer for a ship to be at sea than in port where it will smashed against the dock and washed ashore.
I'm no experienced seaman, but I think I have an idea on that. How about you put the ship in dock--but have the crew get off it? Just a thought.

--
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Re:WTF were they even doing at sea? by Etherized · 2012-10-30 03:33 · Score: 1

Safer for the ship, of course, not the crew.
Yeah - it sure seems like this was a calculated risk to save what is, essentially, a movie prop and tourist attraction; and the wager was in human lives.
Re:WTF were they even doing at sea? by crazyjj · 2012-10-30 03:34 · Score: 1

A SHIP IS SAFER AT SEA THAN IN PORT
You know what's even safer than that? A ship in port, and its crew off the ship.

--
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Re:WTF were they even doing at sea? by crazyjj · 2012-10-30 03:40 · Score: 1

I don't think it takes an experienced master of the seas to reason that traveling through the middle of a hurricane in a 18th-century replica wooden boat (or, really, ANY boat) is probably a bad idea. This inexperienced land-lubber would have opted to put the boat in port and give the crew a few days off instead (you know, so they could get to on-land shelter).

--
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Re:WTF were they even doing at sea? by crazyjj · 2012-10-30 03:45 · Score: 1, Insightful

Ships are designed to be at sea, not alongside a dock. In severe storms, boats are often able to more easily weather a storm in the open water
Why do you people *keep repeating* that dumb shit? Yes, that's true FOR THE BOAT, NOT FOR THE CREW. The best option for the crew (which is *way* more important than your shitty replica) is to GET THEM OFF THE SHIP UNTIL THE STORM PASSES. You see, ports allow the crew to exit the ship and go onto dry land and shelter. And that's why a port is MUCH BETTER in a storm than being out to sea.

--
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Re:WTF were they even doing at sea? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 04:08 · Score: 0

Your RAILS (Redundant Array of Inexpensive (LOL) Sailboats) analogy was good up until the file system corruption.
Assuming RAILS 5, you can reconstruct a crew from their parity bits on the other ships, the actual crew members just move from the bad ship to the good ship.
The problem is that RAILS 5 requires the ships to be close enough so that the crew reconstruction can reoccur, but far enough away that the ships don't just accidentally cause CRC errors, forcing a large amount of ship failures and crew reconstruction to occur due to a misconfigured RAILS-5 setup.
Re:WTF were they even doing at sea? by yurtinus · 2012-10-30 04:39 · Score: 1

You're absolutely right - you're no experienced seaman. That's OK though, I'm not either - but here's the reasoning behind this:

Boats can move. If there's a storm coming, they will leave to get away from it. The vast majority of the time, they make it out just fine, hang out somewhere away from the storm, then come back when the storm has passed. They may have some rain and weather, but they're designed for that. On very rare occasion they don't make it far enough away and the weather is too much for them (or they have a mechanical fault, as it seems happened in this case).

--
+1 Disagree
Re:WTF were they even doing at sea? by tibit · 2012-10-30 04:56 · Score: 1

I think I can't but agree. It was a freakin' replica, not even an outlandishly detailed or expensive one at that. Decent, but not overdone, they didn't have gold plated hull nor valuable artwork on board, nor really anything like that -- neither did the original, of course. Yes, it rubs you wrong when you know that inaction will likely get the replica destroyed, but hey, we presumably value human life as well. It wasn't a boat worth saving at the expense of human life.

--
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
Re:WTF were they even doing at sea? by Jarik+C-Bol · 2012-10-30 04:59 · Score: 1

No one ever said 'The safest place for the crew'. The SHIP. yes, its a 60 year old wooden replica built for a movie, but that does not mean its not valuable. All the reports indicate they set sail while the predictions for the storm where vastly different from the final result. They where trying to ensure that the ship survived, because it was important to them. Yes, its a damn tragedy that people died sailing a ship. Its also a damn tragedy that people died in there living rooms, so lets get off our soap box and stop insulting a crew that was doing what it wanted to. (this is not Bligh's Bounty, they where not FORCED to go).

--
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
Re:WTF were they even doing at sea? by yurtinus · 2012-10-30 05:09 · Score: 1

It's not a wager - it's what ships *do*. Storms come, ships leave to avoid them. The vast majority of the time they don't have any issues. On the rare occasions they don't make it, there's armies of armchair sailors ready to chime in their opinions...

--
+1 Disagree
Re:WTF were they even doing at sea? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 05:12 · Score: 0

You've never met any real sailors, have you. Try and stand between them and their ship when a storm is coming, then get back to us.
Re:WTF were they even doing at sea? by bws111 · 2012-10-30 05:41 · Score: 1

I love these "I am so much smarter than everyone else" posts. Seems that someone as smart as you figured that out, and put a 168ft, 700 ton water tanker in dock and had the crew get off. When the ship broke free it travelled a mile before ending up on a street in Staten Island. Nope, nothing dangerous about that at all, not a bit.
Re:WTF were they even doing at sea? by bws111 · 2012-10-30 05:48 · Score: 1

So you don't think that a ship which has broken from it's moorings in a storm is a hazard to anyone? Really? I am sure that this posed no threat to anyone.
Re:WTF were they even doing at sea? by bws111 · 2012-10-30 05:54 · Score: 1

YOU are the one who is repeating dumb shit. Here is an example of what happens when your wonderful advice is followed. Nope, nothing dangerous about a 168ft, 700 ton ship floating around uncontrolled. Not dangerous at all. Nobody could have possibly been hurt by that.
Re:WTF were they even doing at sea? by bws111 · 2012-10-30 06:04 · Score: 1

What a lot of you people can't seem to grasp is that there is more than 'the ship' at stake when it is in port. There is also everything the ship might come in contact with (including people) if it breaks free (which they do). There is anything that floating or flying debris might come into contact with. There are the people who will have to go and try to get it back under control (not on the open seas, but in dangerous shallow waters close to shore).
Re:WTF were they even doing at sea? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 06:10 · Score: 0

And that's why a port is MUCH BETTER in a storm than being out to sea.
"Any port in a storm"
Re:WTF were they even doing at sea? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 06:31 · Score: 0

In severe storms, boats are often able to more easily weather a storm in the open water than at a dock or in shallow water, where they are likely to bump into things, which rarely ends well for the ship.
Well, a woman died... But at least we saved the ship. Wait a minute, no we didn't. So, this idiotic brain fart destroyed the ship and killed a human. I have to say this plan was full of fail.
Re:WTF were they even doing at sea? by Cederic · 2012-10-30 06:32 · Score: 0

Oh for fucks sake will you shut the fuck up until you can tell us how many people were killed by that tanker?
Right now approximately infinitely more people were killed by the ship that didn't tie up in dock than by the ship that did. Spewing wise words about what's safest doesn't fucking change that.
Re:WTF were they even doing at sea? by marcello_dl · 2012-10-30 06:33 · Score: 1

Ship on sea, danger for the crew.
Ship in port, danger for whatever is near the ship.
Solution: get the crew on land, sink the ship.
C'mon slashdot engineers, this was an easy one.
The best variant of the answer involved explosives and putting the result on youtube.

--
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
Re:WTF were they even doing at sea? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 06:35 · Score: 0

I think it's fairly safe to say the captain and crew didn't expect any undue risk and weren't expecting their generators to fail or they wouldn't have started the voyage. Nobody forced them to sail out of port.
Any more incredibly ignorant comments you'd care to make?
Re:WTF were they even doing at sea? by PortHaven · 2012-10-30 06:36 · Score: 2

And they decided to do so, having left a week ago.
Sailboats are not motor boats.
Re:WTF were they even doing at sea? by PortHaven · 2012-10-30 06:38 · Score: 2

Really, perhaps you should ask the U.S. Navy why they tend to move all their ships out of port during hurricanes?
You'd have opted to see the HMS Bounty guaranteed to be destroyed. Why?
The crew, whom loved that vessel they worked on, rather thought it'd be nice to keep and preserve it. So they tried to sail around the hurricane and do so before it arrived. And truthfully, they probably were a mere 1/2 day from having succeeded. And you would never have even heard this tale.
But for a mechanical failure...
Re:WTF were they even doing at sea? by PortHaven · 2012-10-30 06:40 · Score: 1

And a sail training ship, and a tool for teaching history. And a reminder of when ships were made of wood and men were made of steel.
Truthfully, these ships are ALWAYS dangerous. Whether it's a risk of being hit by a boom, or block'n'tackle, or falling from the mast a good friend of mine's brother did earlier in the year.
Crews of tall ships are aware there is always a risk of death or injury. But the same exists with baseball and football.
Re:WTF were they even doing at sea? by bws111 · 2012-10-30 06:51 · Score: 2

Don't worry, no engineer would work for someone as stupid as you.
First, you seem to be too stupid to know that mooring a ship in a storm doesn't mean it is going to stay moored.
Second, you seem blissfully unaware that an unmoored ship in a storm poses a very large hazard. You don't know where it will go or what it will hit. You don't know how dangerous it will be to attempt to bring it under control again. You don't know what it will spill. In fact, you don't really know anything at all except you have a very large problem to deal with.
Third, you appear to only look at things through a very small lens, and only in hindsight.
Instead, you focus on the ONE instance where something went wrong while attempting to get away from the storm. What about all the other ships that successfully got away (and there were many). Can you state, with certainty, that not a single life would have been lost directly or indirectly if ALL of those ships stayed in port? Not one person would have been killed by any floating or flying debris or the ship itself? Nobody would have been killed trying to rescue the ship? Nobody would have been killed if fuel had been spilled into flooded residential streets?
Re:WTF were they even doing at sea? by PortHaven · 2012-10-30 06:52 · Score: 1

Let's not forget, that the earth is always safer than space. Let's quit going into space. Hell, let's quit doing anything that poses any risk, regardless of it's beauty. Let's just sit in front of our TV and choke on popcorn. But only animated shows, too many actors are injured and killed while filming.
Re:WTF were they even doing at sea? by PortHaven · 2012-10-30 06:55 · Score: 1

A ship is safer at sea. A crew is not. A crew is ALWAYS safer not on a ship. Idiots like you aren't safe anywhere, because one day, someone is just going to hit you over the fucking head with a large piece of drift wood.
And everyone will mourn and cry over the breaking of the poor driftwood. But acknowledge that it gave it's life for a good cause.
Re:WTF were they even doing at sea? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 07:07 · Score: 0

Why do you people *keep repeating* that dumb shit? Yes, that's true FOR THE BOAT, NOT FOR THE CREW. The best option for the crew (which is *way* more important than your shitty replica) is to GET THEM OFF THE SHIP UNTIL THE STORM PASSES.

Apparently the crew didn't think so. It was worth it to them to risk their lives to try to save the boat. And who says they are wrong? My own life isn't worth much really, and I doubt yours is either.
Re:WTF were they even doing at sea? by bws111 · 2012-10-30 07:12 · Score: 1

Let me paraphrase your stupidity for you: Many trees were toppled yesterday. Most people stayed inside and were not killed by falling trees. One guy, however, was killed when a tree fell on his house. Therefore, since approximately infinitely more people were killed inside their houses, OBVIOUSLY the correct thing to do in a storm is stay outside.
Just because ONE ship (of the very many) that left port had a problem, and ONE ship that broke free did not kill someone, does not in any way mean that OVERALL it is safer for everyone if the ships are at sea and not in port. No, I do think you are intelligent enough to understand this.
Re:WTF were they even doing at sea? by Cederic · 2012-10-30 07:20 · Score: 0

I'm terribly sorry, I thought that since you've posted so many times about the dangers of leaving ships in ports that you'd be able to PROVIDE FUCKING EVIDENCE of the danger.
No? As I requested, just shut the fuck up.
Many boats stayed in port. None of them killed anybody. So far the score is 1-0 to the ships that stupidly sailed merrily into a fucking hurricane.
Re:WTF were they even doing at sea? by tibit · 2012-10-30 07:33 · Score: 1

Then take it out to sea and scuttle it, for crying out loud, if it's such a burden as you claim. No need to put anyone in harm over it.

--
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
Re:WTF were they even doing at sea? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 08:58 · Score: 0

Agreed. Which gave rise to a popular idiom:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/any_port_in_a_storm
Any port is better than no port.
Re:WTF were they even doing at sea? by toddestan · 2012-10-30 14:29 · Score: 1

I'm pretty sure no one forced anyone to be on that ship. The crew was there because that's what they wanted to do. Yes, there were risks involved and I'm sure every crew member understood them.
Re:WTF were they even doing at sea? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 14:35 · Score: 0

The original bounty would have pumps that would have been operated manually by gangs of sailors. Wood hauled ships of that type are pretty much in a constant state of sinking, you must pump the bilge.
You're confusing types of ship. The wood hauled ones are generally steam powered by burning the wood, whereas the article is talking about a wood hulled ship.
Re:WTF were they even doing at sea? by gmhowell · 2012-10-30 14:49 · Score: 1

If this is what you are talking about, it doesn't look to me like it wound up in the street.

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Re:WTF were they even doing at sea? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 19:27 · Score: 0

Totally agree with crazyji...and furthermore most of the "sailors" on this replica....it was a mock up made for a movie for christ sake"....were amatuers with little experience at sea.....the owners should be sued for calling on it to sail and the Skipper was the only one who should have gone down with the ship for agreeing with such nonsense as sailing it in those conditions!
Re:WTF were they even doing at sea? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-01 07:25 · Score: 0

Do us a favor troll: Leave slashdot. 1 line posting karma whoring trolls like gmhowell are a dime a dozen.

The captain by Deadstick · 2012-10-30 02:08 · Score: 1

...appears to have upheld the highest traditions of the sea. In the past couple of decades there have been at least two Mediterranean cruise ship skippers who can't say that.

Not a religious guy, but...

Hear us as we cry to thee,
For those in peril on the sea.

Re:The captain by tibit · 2012-10-30 05:00 · Score: 1

Suggested reading: "Nation" by Terry Pratchett. Steven Briggs's reading of the same is IMHO outstanding, if you're into spoken performances.

--
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.

Knocks Off Gawker Websites? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 02:08 · Score: 1

Sandy knocked out the gawker websites? How is it that I have been thinking hurricanes are bad, for all these years?

The Daily Show by Stele · 2012-10-30 02:09 · Score: 1

No Daily Show. Now how will I get my news?

Re:The Daily Show by Mashiki · 2012-10-30 06:25 · Score: 1

If you're watching the daily show for news, you've got bigger problems to worry about. Kidding aside, I'm up Ontario, between down around London. And there's been power outages all over the place here in the SWON(sw-ontario) last I heard from my buddy who works for HydroOne, around 28k people were without power, which is down from last night up around 40k. 14k people in Toronto proper, but there are still estimate and damage reports coming in.
Anything else is inconsequential, basically just websites not loading and that's not unexpected.

--
Om, nomnomnom...

Gawker offline? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 02:09 · Score: 0

Well, there's a bit of silver lining.

Why was boat out to sea by ZombieBraintrust · 2012-10-30 02:10 · Score: 1

Does anywone know why the boat was out? Seems like a bad time to sail in replica boat.

Re:Why was boat out to sea by ZombieBraintrust · 2012-10-30 02:15 · Score: 1

Nevermind, It looks like they were trying to save the ship by sailing it east St. Petersburg.

Bounty's current voyage is a calculated decision... NOT AT ALL... irresponsible or with a lack of foresight as some have suggested. The fact of the matter is... A SHIP IS SAFER AT SEA THAN IN PORT!
Safer for the ship. The dead crew would have been safer in their beds on land.
Re:Why was boat out to sea by thestudio_bob · 2012-10-30 02:15 · Score: 1

I heard it was headed to Clearwater, FL where it spends its winters. Unfortunately, it's not a fast moving boat.

--
The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains /.
Re:Why was boat out to sea by JustOK · 2012-10-30 02:47 · Score: 1

depends on where their beds were.

--
rewriting history since 2109
Re:Why was boat out to sea by vlm · 2012-10-30 02:57 · Score: 1

Safer for the ship. The dead crew would have been safer in their beds on land.
Nah, their beds would be underwater due to the surge and they'd be drowned. If you gotta evac one way or another, you should do what you do best, and what sailors do best is sail, so...

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Re:Why was boat out to sea by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 03:41 · Score: 0

It's home port in Florida is at St. Petersburg. I visited it in San Jaun PR last year, and wanted to book a berth on her sometime next year. She was a beautiful boat, and I've had several friends sail on her to England and the Caribbean who said sailing on the Bounty was the adventure of a lifetime. My friend posted to Facebook yesterday that he is okay, but not being polite to the media. He's happy to be alive, but grieving for his shipmates. I sail a small 30 ft. trimiran and know how tough it can be in heavy seas, but would much rather be at sea than in a port during a storm like Sandy. Safer for the crew and the boat to be in deep water with fewer obstacles to hit than smashed up against the dock or rocks or houses half a mile inland.
Re:Why was boat out to sea by PortHaven · 2012-10-30 06:57 · Score: 1

Sandy Death Toll: 26
2 Dead at Sea
24 Dead on Land
(tree branches the number one killer)
Re:Why was boat out to sea by ZombieBraintrust · 2012-10-30 07:59 · Score: 1

Wow you sure know how to lie with statistics. That is 2 /14 compared with 24 / several million. Lets end this conversation it is getting kinda of not classy.
Re:Why was boat out to sea by PortHaven · 2012-10-30 09:35 · Score: 1

It's election season...I'm practicing.

historically accurate by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 02:13 · Score: 0

The HMS bounty is just a little bit more historically accurate now, that's all.

Huffington Post by Edzor · 2012-10-30 02:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

I think the Huffington Post managers would be more worried if a real media website went down like the NYT. Where would they steal - sorry aggregate - their content from then!

I read the title and all I got to say... by thestudio_bob · 2012-10-30 02:14 · Score: 1

I read the title and all I got to say is that its a damn shame about the HMS Bounty.

--
The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains /.

Have any Zombie outbreaks been spotted . . . ? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2012-10-30 02:14 · Score: 0

This was suspiciously in the news yesterday: http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2012/10/29/joss-whedon-warns-that-mitt-romney-could-spur-zombie-apocalypse/

Maybe the hurricane Sandy really started it . . . ?

--
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!

So where are all you idiots by geekoid · 2012-10-30 02:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

that said this storm wasn't going to be anything and were criticizing people getting prepared in the 'Sandy' story the other day? hmm? I expect you are apologizing and have learned your lesson~

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Re:So where are all you idiots by Daetrin · 2012-10-30 03:24 · Score: 1

I particularly "liked" this guy who was complaining about how nice the weather in Virginia hours before the storm was supposed to make landfall. I don't know how much it was directly affected by the first part of the hurricane, but according to the news last night Virginia was one of the states being affected by the blizzards spawned by the hybrid storm, so i doubt the weather is quit so nice there by this point.

--
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Re:So where are all you idiots by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 03:30 · Score: 0

We sould sentence them to prison, after all, a storm can be perfectly predicted

HMS Bounty missing by CosaNostra+Pizza+Inc · 2012-10-30 02:15 · Score: 1

"Several news sites are reporting that the 1962 replica of the HMS bounty was lost at sea due to hurricane Sandy, about 90 miles off North Carolina."

Are they certain this wasn't the result of a mutiny?

Knocks Off Gawker Websites by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 02:17 · Score: 1

Knocks Off Gawker Websites ... and nothing of value was lost.

Re:Knocks Off Gawker Websites by Anubis+IV · 2012-10-30 03:05 · Score: 2

Knocks Off Gawker Websites ... and nothing of value was lost.
Add the Huffington Post to your comment and you said exactly what I came here to say.
Re:Knocks Off Gawker Websites by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 03:14 · Score: 0

Except HP is still limping along with static pages, so it's not really offline. Gawker just has a page saying they're offline

Mechanical problems by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 02:26 · Score: 0

I heard their plan was to outrun the storm and make it to Florida, but they had mechanical problems and were dead in the water waiting for a tow. Tough break, maybe something wasn't done correctly in dry dock. They must use my auto mechanic.

Re:Mechanical problems by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 02:42 · Score: 0

It's a sailing ship!
Re:Mechanical problems by vlm · 2012-10-30 03:02 · Score: 1

they had mechanical problems and were dead in the water waiting for a tow
Ouch, its almost impossible to sink a ship that at least has steerage, but out of control you're in deep trouble if you get broadside to the waves or a big wave over the stern and you're done. Boats, even antique replicas, can survive almost anything headon other than hitting a lighthouse but from the side or back they're toast.

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

Next oto nothing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 02:28 · Score: 0

Here we have some cloud and mild rain. Not exactly the end of days scenario we were told to expect.

Re:Next oto nothing by ColdWetDog · 2012-10-30 02:58 · Score: 1

Here we have some cloud and mild rain. Not exactly the end of days scenario we were told to expect.
Of course, you're in Seattle.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!

The ship was called "Bounty" not "HMS Bounty" by dave420 · 2012-10-30 02:28 · Score: 1

It wasn't in the Royal Navy, and it was clearly registered as Bounty...

end panic driven hyperbole by rubycodez · 2012-10-30 02:36 · Score: 1

storms such as these are recurring phenomenon. in fact we were overdue for one like Sandy.

it has nothing to do with "climate change" nor anything to do with fossil fuel. It has to do with the star known as Sol....

Re:end panic driven hyperbole by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 03:18 · Score: 0

Yeah, where your data to back that up? "While a couple of hurricane landfalls in Florida have produced pressures in this range, most cities in the Northeast have never reached such values, as is evident in this state-by-state roundup. The region’s lowest pressure on record occurred with the 1938 hurricane at Bellport, Long Island (946 hPa)."
Re:end panic driven hyperbole by rubycodez · 2012-10-30 14:46 · Score: 1

Sorry, but hurricane strength can be inferred over a longer timescale than your 20th century measurements. The deadliest hurricane season in recorded history was the 1780 Atlantic hurricane season, which even included one in New Jersey.

at sea because and NYSE by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 02:40 · Score: 0

They were at sea because ships generally tend to do better at sea during a storm of this magnitude than they do in port. Modern day ships can generally get underway and scoot out of the path of the main part of the storm pretty quickly. When I was in the Navy they would totally empty out the entire Norfolk Naval Station of all ships, boats, and submarines for a storm like this. It was called a "sortie."

On another topic, this being /. and all, why on EARTH did the Stock Exchange stay down for two days (or at ALL for that matter). Do their servers only reside in the New Jersey data center and/or on Wall street? Don't they have geographically isolated redundant backup? I mean after all, they are the freakin STOCK EXCHANGE! When a hurricane takes out Miami my little company stays online through it all. Phones get transferred to other offices to be answered or employees work from home (while the broadband lasts). Why would a storm take down the entire New york stock exchange for crying out loud?????

Re:at sea because and NYSE by jonwil · 2012-10-30 03:33 · Score: 1

Even if the NYSE itself could physically stay up and running, there is no way all the people sitting at their desks doing trades all day (or the specialized computer trading systems the guys sitting at their desks are in charge of keeping an eye on) could stay up during an event as large as this.

Trapped by jjp9999 · 2012-10-30 02:40 · Score: 1

I've been stuck in my apartment, constantly online, with blankets on my windows... actually, things aren't much different from every other day. Only when I peek outside, it's raining.

Re:Trapped by ColdWetDog · 2012-10-30 03:00 · Score: 3, Informative

Here then, look at this neat map.
Kinda hypnotizing. (Wind map, in case anyone's scared to go there.)

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:Trapped by Psychotria · 2012-10-30 10:22 · Score: 1

Kinda beautiful as well.

wrong, populary called HMS Bounty by millions by rubycodez · 2012-10-30 02:42 · Score: 1

it was a replica of the HMS Bounty, and is popularly called as such. the world doesn't care about royal navy registration and can put HMS in front of anything they please.

Sad by paiute · 2012-10-30 02:47 · Score: 1

I just took some pictures of her when she was hauled out of the water in Boothbay Harbor, a couple of weeks ago. I was joking that the modern sailor was spoiled, as there was no seat of ease visible at the bow.

--
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine

Re:Sad by DarkOx · 2012-10-30 03:09 · Score: 1

I got to see her when she was at Sample too, glad I got the oppertunity.

--
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

No by Bender+Unit+22 · 2012-10-30 02:57 · Score: 1

Not at all, this is the first I've heard of it. But I have also been working way to much the last few days to find time to browse news sites.

Best site backup plan? #Openthread by Overzeetop · 2012-10-30 02:58 · Score: 2

Dear lifehacker readers - what is the best way you've found to make sure a site remains available during a natural disaster?
-Adam Pash

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?

Re:Best site backup plan? #Openthread by Remus+Shepherd · 2012-10-30 03:17 · Score: 1

The Gawker sites have backup blogs that are now up. Gawker is at http://live.gawker.com/ Lifehacker is at http://live.lifehacker.com/ and so on. They seem to have already thought of a backup plan, albeit not a complete one.
Questions about site backup should be sent to Gizmodo, anyhow.

--
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
Re:Best site backup plan? #Openthread by dingen · 2012-10-30 03:25 · Score: 2

I'm really amazed large websites such as the Gawker blogs and the Huffington Post are all hosted in a single data center.
Isn't this the age of the cloud and everything? I would have thought they'd simply serve from another location while the NY host is down, but apparently it's not set up in such a way that that is easily done.
Could Slashdot be wiped out by a single power failure as well?

--
Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
Re:Best site backup plan? #Openthread by SecurityGuy · 2012-10-30 04:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

This is the age of putting things in the "cloud" and forgetting that cloud is just someone else's data center(s). If you pay for services sufficient to stay online if the entire northeastern US goes offline, you at the very least get to sue your provider and probably win when it doesn't work. If you periodically go into your datacenter, er, "cloud" and flip the breaker and listen to all the fans die and your backup site X thousand miles away seamlessly takes over, you stand a really good chance of actually weathering a storm like this.
The people who are down didn't necessarily do it wrong. They may have made a quite rational decision that the cost of fully redundant geographically dispersed backup infrastructure and live failover testing is greater than the expected cost of downtime when you factor in the probability of it happening. If they didn't think about it, or just assumed their provider wouldn't screw it up and are now running around wetting their pants, then yeah, they did it wrong.
Re:Best site backup plan? #Openthread by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 06:36 · Score: 0

They would have had true redundancy if they hadn't spent all of their money developing Kinja.
Re:Best site backup plan? #Openthread by Fnord666 · 2012-10-30 07:06 · Score: 1

The Gawker sites have backup blogs that are now up. Gawker is at http://live.gawker.com/ Lifehacker is at http://live.lifehacker.com/ and so on. They seem to have already thought of a backup plan, albeit not a complete one.
The good news is that this is the best their sites have looked in months! I wholeheartedly approve of the new layout.

--
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
Re:Best site backup plan? #Openthread by dingen · 2012-10-30 07:15 · Score: 1

Of course the cloud isn't just a data center. It's the cloud if a data center can go off line and your data is still available.
I understand the investment is a bit larger to set your site up in a geographical redundant manner compared to a locally hosted service, but I thought large websites such as the Gawker group or the Huffington Post would put in that money to ensure availability. I guess not. Maybe I underestimate the extra investment.

--
Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
Re:Best site backup plan? #Openthread by SecurityGuy · 2012-10-30 10:34 · Score: 1

Of course the cloud isn't just a data center. It's the cloud if a data center can go off line and your data is still available.
I'm afraid that's not true. It should be, but in current marketechture it's not. Plenty of people eager to part you with your money will sell you kit to build a "cloud" in your OWN data center. Yes, data center as in singular. Therein lies the peril. People buy "cloud" thinking it means what you think it means, and what I think it SHOULD mean, but what it *really* means is often something else. At it's worst, it simply means "on the internet", even if that's only one virtual server on the internet.
Really, the first question you need to ask people when they start talking cloud is what they mean by it.

Callcentric VoIP provider also taken down by Sandy by Bill+Dimm · 2012-10-30 03:27 · Score: 1

Callcentric has no backup power, so their phone service is down nationwide.

Addtional Coverage of the Bounty by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 03:32 · Score: 0

There is a running commentary of the latest in the Bounty Case at http://blog.halifaxshippingnews.ca/search/label/Bounty

Re:wrong, populary called HMS Bounty by millions by Black+Parrot · 2012-10-30 03:35 · Score: 1

it was a replica of the HMS Bounty, and is popularly called as such. the world doesn't care about royal navy registration and can put HMS in front of anything they please.

I've never seen an HMS first post.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade

Re:wrong, populary called HMS Bounty by millions by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 03:37 · Score: 0

the world doesn't care about royal navy registration and can put HMS in front of anything they please.

Indeed, I am HMS Anonymous Coward.

Seems like a good day by biodata · 2012-10-30 04:07 · Score: 1

to bury bad news, as someone once said http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo_Moore

--
Korma: Good

Re:wrong, populary called HMS Bounty by millions by Coisiche · 2012-10-30 04:10 · Score: 2

I think that the Royal Navy might get slightly miffed about people doing that. Whether or not they could do anything about it is another matter. British Armed forces probably don't get much of a legal budget for pursuing these things.

nothing was lost by Sez+Zero · 2012-10-30 04:13 · Score: 3, Funny

...wind and water surges knocked off Gawker sites...

And nothing of value was lost.

Natural Disaster = High Octane Suds!!!!!! by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · 2012-10-30 04:43 · Score: 1

The Weather Channel came up with an interesting abbreviation for their Breaking Weather System: "BreWS." Isn't there a microbrew called Nor'Easter?

Other than Fog Creek... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 04:44 · Score: 0

...nothing of value in NYC, so no great loss.

Call 1-800-FLOWERS by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 04:45 · Score: 0

Sandy knocked Gawker off-line? We should all send Sandy a gift basket.

No Loss by pubwvj · 2012-10-30 04:48 · Score: 1

No, the downing of the Huffington Post and Gawker didn't affect me at all. No loss.

How did it affect me? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 05:50 · Score: 0

The internet seemed a smidge less sanctimonious and whiny with both Gawker and Huffpo down. Of course, nothing good lasts forever...

Consider This by Wandering+Voice · 2012-10-30 06:26 · Score: 1

Had anyone stopped to consider that all this news of hurricane violence in the media, is encouraging more hurricanic violence?

Re:wrong, populary called HMS Bounty by millions by Cederic · 2012-10-30 06:39 · Score: 1

Technically it's a self-funding activity.

"Hello, are you the Captain? Yes, we're here to collect Her Majesty's ship. You can buy it back at the auction"

The Data by Chibi+Merrow · 2012-10-30 07:51 · Score: 5, Informative

The 1938 Hurricane wasn't called Bellport, that's where the measurement you're referring to was made. We didn't name storms back then. That storm was known as 'The Long Island Express' or 'Yankee Clipper,' as it was an incredibly powerful storm that reached a ground track speed of 70mph and struck Long Island and New England practically without warning.

Back to your question, however... The data doesn't exist, because we only recently understood what these storms are and had the capability to make these measurements! Flying aircraft into the center of hurricanes and dropping scientific measuring equipment into them is a relatively recent phenomenon. Otherwise, you had to be (un)lucky enough to be a ship or a city that the eye passed over to get an accurate measurement.

That being said, there is a well-documented history of incredibly powerful storms hitting the New England area, going back to the 1600s.

As previously mentioned, the Long Island Express in 1938, which killed 700 people and did $6 billion in damages (2004 dollars). It had a minimum pressure of 947Mbar, compared to Sandy's 946 at landfall. The Express made landfall as a Category 3, however, showing that central pressure isn't everything. It created a couple new islands by breaking new inlets through the existing barrier islands.

Before that was the 1893 New York Hurricane with a minimum pressure of 952. Came ashore as a strong Category 1. Killed 38, uprooted a bunch of trees, smashed some buildings... Completely removed Hog Island from the map. But pretty calm compared to the Express.

The 1869 Saxby Gale also messed up New England pretty good. Killed over 100. Actually created a new land bridge between Nova Scotia and Partridge Island.

The 1821 Norfolk and Long Island hurricane flooded NYC as well. It managed a 13-foot storm surge at low tide, compared to Sandy's 9-foot, which hit at high tide. Between Category 3 and 4 strength.

There was also the Great September Gale of 1815. Category 3. Actually created the island of Long Beach, as it used to be part of the Rockaways peninsula. This was actually the storm that apparently lead to the theory that Hurricanes were vortices, instead of just large waves of rushing atmosphere.

The most impressive one, though, and the one we sadly have very little direct data for is probably the Great Colonial Hurricane of 1635. It was most likely a Category 4, probably with a central pressure = 930Mbar. Simulations show a landfall pressure of 938Mbar in Long Island, which (if correct) would still beat Sandy for the all-time record above North Carolina. Damage was noticable 50 years later.

So there's the data we have. Doesn't look like a seventy-five year cycle to me. It does show, however, that such storms are unusual but not unheard of in recorded history. And, if I remember my studies correctly, there is evidence in the terrain of New England of even worse storms over the past thousand years.

What's changed? New England is much more densely populated than it used to be, our news is much more up-to-date and instantaneous, and our modeling and predictive capabilities are much better. The same was true of the Gulf Hurricanes a few years back (Katrina and Rita). Much of the areas that were devastated were areas that had been sparsely populated when they were previously destroyed (in Hurricane Camille, for instance), and had been spared destruction long enough for the memories to fade in people's minds.

--
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them

Re:The Data by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-31 01:46 · Score: 0

Awesome. Not to be read by those who are bothered by facts.

Amazing by OhSoLaMeow · 2012-10-30 09:39 · Score: 1

... that a cartoon squirrel could sink a ship.

Or did I miss something?

--
They can take my LifeAlert pendant when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.

so, it's just a replica... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 10:49 · Score: 0

...it's just a replica, just make a another. had this been the original Bounty, that would have been different.

Minor correction? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-30 22:40 · Score: 0

I think 1982 may be the correct launch year for the replica. Trivial, I know.

Slashdot Mirror

Sandy Sinks HMS Bounty, Knocks Off Gawker Websites

238 comments