A Sea Story: the Wreck of the Replica HMS Bounty

An anonymous reader writes "On October 25, 2012, as residents of the U.S. east coast made frantic preparations for the arrival of Hurricane Sandy, the captain of the HMS Bounty (a replica tall ship constructed fifty years earlier for the Marlon Brando film Mutiny on the Bounty) made a foolish decision, with the assent of his crew, to proceed with a scheduled voyage from New London, CT for St. Petersburg FL. CNN's Thom Patterson has written a long story with the benefit of survivor testimony to the NTSB and U.S. Coast Guard. Captain Robin Walbridge thought he could outrun the hurricane, and besides, he'd 'sailed into hurricanes before.' The crew (officially there were no passengers, a fact that allowed the ship to evade certain safety regulations) consisted of tall ship enthusiasts with widely varying amounts of nautical experience, perhaps taken by the vast historical literature on the great age of sailing. A day and a half into the voyage, Captain Walbridge altered his plan of sailing east of the storm, to sailing south and west of it. A day later, the Bounty was less than 200 miles from the eye of the storm; the engine room started to flood, and the pumps were jammed with debris being torn off by the storm's 70 mph winds. The end came early next day, the Bounty was knocked down by a huge wave, tossing the captain and several crew members overboard. The Coast Guard rescued fourteen of the crew members, but Claudene Christian (an adventure-loving novice who had enlisted as crew a few months before) was dead, and Captain Walbridge's body has not been found."

Comments

Epitath

[techno-vampire]

"Here lies Captain Robin Walbridge, lost at sea and never found."

Re:Epitath

[Runaway1956]

I cannot be sure how seaworthy the Bounty was. I never saw it, except in photos or video. Photos and videos don't really tell much - a guy needs to get into the woodwork, study everything above and below the waterline to decide something like that.

But, I propose that the ship went down due to inept seamanship.

Debris clogged the bilge pumps? Really? I heard over the ship's loudspeakers, many times during five years of sea duty, "Secure for heavy seas. Secure all missile hazards." Seamen and Petty Officers would go to work, making certain that heavy objects were bolted down, lashed down, chocked, or whatever. Chiefs and officers would come around, inspecting, searching for even small objects that might be free to go flying, possibly putting an eye out. Yes, even pens and pencils were secured. Personal property was stowed in a locker, that locker bolted to the deck, where it had withstood many another day of heavy seas. The ONLY missile hazards permissible, were the bodies of your ship mates!

You got shit clogging the bilge pumps - you're gonna die, simple as that. The most seaworthy of ships is always taking on water, even on calm days, or in port. The crew gets an idea of how much, pretty quickly. Tied up to a pier, they may have to pump a hundred gallons of water out every month, on a smaller ship. On a huge naval ship, they'll get that much condensation!

FTFA: The engine room itself worried Bounty's newly hired engineer, Chris Barksdale. He thought it needed a good cleaning. Sawdust and wood chips littered the floor. Everything just looked old.

That sawdust and wood chips is more than enough to spell the Bounty's doom. It doesn't take much to choke the impellor of a bilge pump. A chip the size of a small person's thumb is sufficient. Strainers help, but strainers can be choked as well.

FTFA: Below deck, crew members suffered from seasickness. In the galley, the motion pulled tables from their hinges.

Definitely not good - the article repeatedly mentions rotting wood. Someone should have been aware that the tables weren't securely fastened down. What of all the rest of the ship's equipment?

FTFA: Wood chips and sawdust from the dirty floor were floating in the rising water and clogging the pumps. They had to be shut off constantly to clear the strainers. Scornavacchi and Adam Prokosh used trash bags – and their bare hands – to scoop debris.
As the scramble to pump water off the ship grew more desperate, deckhand Mark Warner smashed the engine room door open so he could move a portable gasoline powered pump up to the deck.
But the pump wouldn't work. According to testimony, no one had been trained to use it.
Around 7 p.m., one of the ship's two generators failed.

At this point, the ship is dead. She can only take on more water, and sink lower into the water, becoming ever more unresponsive to the crew's input.

Inept seamanship killed the Bounty, plain and simple. The Captain and First Mate failed to do their jobs in preparing for sea, the crew failed, and the ship died. The ship was missing a slave driving Boatswain's Mate to drive the crew into performing the proper preparations.

Thank God that the Navy has those knuckle dragging Deck Apes to ensure that Navy ships don't founder in the same way!

Re:Epitath

[ceoyoyo]

They also appear to have foundered earlier than necessary because they lost power. As my sailing instructor drilled into us, you're in a sailboat. The engines are auxiliaries. Being beam on to the sea in a storm is not a happy situation, and, in a sailing ship, having your engines die isn't a good reason for it.

The captain sounds like an irresponsible thrill seeker, and the crew, although they were all supposedly experienced sailors, does seem to have neglected a lot. The article implies throughout that it was some kind of hero worship.

Re:Epitath

[techno-vampire]

Thank God that the Navy has those knuckle dragging Deck Apes to ensure that Navy ships don't founder in the same way!

Yup! I wasn't a Deck Ape, but I spent my fair share of time lashing things down and making sure they stayed secure back when I was in the Navy. Just because the crew isn't properly trained is no excuse for the officers not seeing to it that things are properly ship-shape!

Re:Epitath

[drnb]

Just because the crew isn't properly trained is no excuse for the officers not seeing to it that things are properly ship-shape!

If a crew member is not properly trained it is the officer's responsibility to quickly remedy that. It doesn't matter if the crew member is paid or a volunteer. You go to sea, you learn to do your job properly, period.

Re:Epitath

[Runaway1956]

I've looked at the decision to leave port. I can't really fault that. Navy captains routinely make that same decision. The Coast Guard, likewise.

The decision to turn south and west to follow the storm seems somewhat less responsible. But, again, Navy and Coast Guard captains do it, with reason.

The captain's failure in this instance centers around housekeeping and seaworthiness. If the ship not truly seaworthy, if housekeeping is a threat to that seaworthiness, then the captain must rectify the situation, or refrain from going to sea and/or chasing that storm. This captain chose to run his ship close to it's extreme performance parameters, despite the fact that the ship wasn't "ship shape".

Re:Epitath

[pehrs]

I have worked on navy and civilian ships, and I can't imagine going to sea with sawdust or wood chips in the engine room. Doing it in heavy weather is unthinkable and the thought sends a shiver up my spine.

Maintaining a ship takes time and dedication. In the time of the tall ships they had the boatswain and the carpenters. Today we have the chief and the engineering staff. An experienced seaman in either position would probably have stopped this trip, and that is one very important reason that the chief should be on equal standing with the captain.

Re:Epitath

[Shinobi]

The thing is, for that particular hurricane, even many USN ships, the ones not fast enough to outrun a hurricane that size, remained in port areas, anchored up for hurricane away from the docks. Hell, from what I read on the SA forums, even many USCG ships sheltered from the hurricane, anchoring up-river in the lee of hills if possible.

Other tall ship captains remained with their ships in port, and even warned the captain of The Bounty, but he set out anyway. The problem is, the captain ran with a personality cult crew who was selected based on who was agreeable. and he WAS a thrillseeker. Several experienced Tall Ship sailors refused to work with him. An interview was found where he stated that "you chase hurricanes".

Another reason behind his departure may have been corporate pressure, wanting them down in St. Petersburg as early as possible for cost reasons.

Re:Epitath

[coastwalker]

"incompetent arrogant morons" comes to mind. Testosterone fueled will power is an efficient route to death, serves them right.

Re:Epitath

[ceoyoyo]

He does seem to have neglected seaworthiness and housekeeping. But there's plenty to criticize in his decision to leave port as well. A fifty year old wooden square rigger, particularly one in poor repair, with a small crew with limited experience on the ship isn't the same thing as a naval capital ship. Even if a cruiser, for example, decided to go to sea in advance of a hurricane, you can bet the captain wouldn't be launching helicopters, auxiliaries or the zodiacs unless absolutely necessary.

Re:Epitath

[Anonymous Coward]

They also appear to have foundered earlier than necessary because they lost power. As my sailing instructor drilled into us, you're in a sailboat. The engines are auxiliaries.

You can't sail in 75-100 mph winds with 25-30 foot seas, especially on a square rigged wooden ship.

Re:Epitath

[Capt.Albatross]

I've looked at the decision to leave port. I can't really fault that. Navy captains routinely make that same decision. The Coast Guard, likewise.

All that shows is that you cannot automatically conclude it was a bad decision. Whether it was depends on the specifics of the ship, its crew, the ship's location, the storm's predicted development and the degree of certainty of those predictions, and the other options available.

If the ship not truly seaworthy, if housekeeping is a threat to that seaworthiness, then the captain must rectify the situation, or refrain from going to sea and/or chasing that storm.

Exactly - that is one of the specifics of the ship.

The decision to turn south and west to follow the storm seems somewhat less responsible.

By turning westwards when he did, the Captain was not following the storm, he was crossing in front of it. It certainly looks reckless, but I guess we will never know if the captain had come to conclude that the ship would likely founder regardless of its course, and was seeking to improve the chances of a rescue.

Re:Epitath

[Anonymous Coward]

Maintaining a ship takes time and dedication. In the time of the tall ships they had the boatswain and the carpenters. Today we have the chief and the engineering staff. An experienced seaman in either position would probably have stopped this trip, and that is one very important reason that the chief should be on equal standing with the captain.

In port, the engineer and chief should be on an even footing. There is only one captain at sea. The boat's owners, and crew, may have input, but the captain alone is ultimately responsible for his or her vessel while underway at sea. There's an anecdotal story about an aircraft carrier in the USN, in which the captain decided to let the crew vote on which movie to request for the theater while underway - and then was relieved when command heard about it, for the reason stated above. (No idea as to the veracity of said story.) A captain may, and absolutely should, request input and listen to the concerns of his officers (to include, most especially, his chief engineer) but must himself make the decisions. This tradition has even carried on into aviation. Even the pirates of the Caribbean (not the movie ones), though they often ran democratic ships, elected the captain in port but made the captain was a dictator at sea.

Re:Epitath

[volmtech]

I do believe the Snipes are responsible for keeping the ship afloat. The Deck Apes get noticed because you can SEE them, We Snipes were down in the hold, keeping those pumps running.

Re:Epitath

[Runaway1956]

No argument there. But you down in the engine room, boiler room, diesel room, can't be out and about cleaning up after every slob who wants to leave his trash lying about, right? Boats is responsible for topside cleanliness, storekeepers and cooks responsible for all the storerooms, ships servicemen responsible for their spaces - etc.

And, CHENG would have already been on your asses for a pile of woodchips lying in the engine room, if you didn't clean it up yourself.

Not sure I understand

[Gothmolly]

Why this is "News for Nerds" ?

Re:Not sure I understand

[b5bartender]

...because they were rescued only after a last-ditch effort to call for help by rigging a ham radio to send an e-mail to their home office?

Re:Not sure I understand

[ewanm89]

Urm, if they had that kind of radio equipment a standard mayday call on marine VHF channel 16 (156.8MHz) FM is all that is needed.

Re:Not sure I understand

[msauve]

I know it's not considered proper to read the article before commenting, but since the GP did, you should have, too.

The ship's high frequency radio: no response.

Bounty's satellite phone: no response.

Finally, electrician Doug Faunt rigged a ham radio to send and receive e-mail. They e-mailed Bounty's home office, which in turn contacted the Coast Guard at 9 p.m. The crew learned a Coast Guard C-130 search aircraft was heading toward the Bounty.

If you knew as much as you think you do, you'd know that marine VHF is good for a maximum range about 110 km, with antennas at both ends mounted high and good conditions. The Bounty sank about 100 miles (160 km) offshore. There weren't a lot of other ships to contact in the area of the hurricane, I'd guess.

Re:Not sure I understand

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Why this is "News for Nerds" ?

"Argh, Matey's! Thirty days at sea, and not a wench to be seen!"

"Grease up the monkey!"

Because the Bounty was the victim of Pirates after the cargo of Bitcoins bound for North Korea's Fearless Leader Kim Chi, to fund his Cyber-War against Facebook on his Nokia Windows 8 Phone over Spamhaus DDOSing his Laser Fusion project to power Egypt's Internet Cable used to transfer Google Patents for banning Amazon meat . . . ("huh, huh . . . he said 'meat'") . . . , which is causing IT Admin Stress, to which Fearless Leader Obama answered, "I fart on North Korea's puny war plans. So thin are they, that I dare not wipe my ass with them, lest my fingers shall be soiled!", which further . . .

. . . and . . .

Re:Not sure I understand

[icebike]

Your own quote mentioned HF radio, not VHF.

If you knew half as much as you thing you do, you would know that HF radios can cover thousands of miles.

Re:Not sure I understand

[msauve]

I wasn't the one who brought up VHF, which wouldn't have helped, as the GP's flippant "use channel 16" claimed.

The article makes clear that their efforts to communicate using their marine radio were unsuccessful, while using the ham radio (almost certainly HF) worked.

BTW, I have an Extra class ham license, and am well aware of the capabilities and limitations of the various bands.

Re:Not sure I understand

[Anonymous Coward]

If you knew as much as you think you do, you'd know that marine VHF is good for a maximum range about 110 km.

What's the maximum range of the sat devices that failed mr. know it all?

Re:Not sure I understand

[Rich0]

I'm a bit surprised that there aren't stations monitoring HF for emergency broadcasts. Aircraft still use HF for oceanic communications, and ships spend far more time out at sea. In heavy storms I'd expect satellite communications to be much less reliable than HF. Granted, aircraft mostly use digital transmissions these days, but they still have HF for backup, and I believe they do routinely check in on HF to make sure they have contact with each station along the way.

But, the whole voyage seemed to be a story of bad planning, so not having made plans for long-range communications before sailing far out into the ocean is just one more bad decision on the road to disaster.

Re:Not sure I understand

[msauve]

I'm a bit surprised that there aren't stations monitoring HF for emergency broadcasts.

There are. It doesn't do any good if the radio doesn't work, or the antenna blew down, though.

Re:Not sure I understand

[Rich0]

Well, if the radio didn't work, they couldn't use it to send emails.

It seems likely that somebody brought an HF to send email back to base, and that they weren't aware of how to contact the coast card via HF.

Then again, digital protocols are more robust - maybe if things weren't working right (lost antenna, etc) they could get out enough signal to send the email but not enough for voice. That website you listed doesn't mention any stations monitoring for morse code - that seems like a bit of an omission as you can transmit morse with very little in the way of working hardware and it would be almost as robust as a digital link.

Re:Not sure I understand

[msauve]

Well, if the radio didn't work, they couldn't use it to send emails.

There's a difference between the marine radio they had on board, and the ham radio. Ham radios generally don't cover the marine bands, at least for transmitting. You really should read the article to understand what happened.

Re:Not sure I understand

[Anonymous Coward]

Morse is actually more robust than digital if you don't count the modulation schemes designed to be demodulated wen they are under the noise level (if you use a digital demodulator for the Morse it can even be detected at lower snr ratios than with an analog demodulator). Actually digital is not more robust than analog in most cases, for example is possible to hear in HF a understandable radio broadcast in analog with signals lower and with lower quality than the minimum needed to hear it in digital using a DRM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Radio_Mondiale) receiver.

Re:Not sure I understand

[Rich0]

Understood, but my point was that going far out to sea without being prepared for long-range communications is foolish. Maybe their ham radio couldn't transmit on any of the HF frequencies on that website you provided. Maybe it could but they didn't have that list of frequencies with them. Either way, they weren't prepared.

While I'm not a pilot I am a bit of an aviation enthusiast and the one thing that strikes me is that aircraft in general are prepared for emergencies. They follow procedures designed to ensure that they always have contingencies, and those procedures include limits on where they can be applied and where even more extensive preparations are needed. If I were a pilot I wouldn't fly over large uninhabited areas without multiple independent radios capable of calling for help should something go wrong.

The really ridiculous thing is that emergency locator beacons have almost become commodities these days. If I were to become a pilot I'd almost certainly invest in one. From what I've read the newer digital ones use pulsed transmissions designed to penetrate cloud cover.

Re:Not sure I understand

[WaffleMonster]

Urm, if they had that kind of radio equipment a standard mayday call on marine VHF channel 16 (156.8MHz) FM is all that is needed.

VHF is LOS (Line of Sight) it does not _normally_ work over the horizon regardless of how much wattage is at your disposal. HF (High Frequency) can bounce off the ionosphere and reach anywhere if you select the right frequencies for conditions and range.

Sailors shorthand for height of eye to horizon (in normal miles) is 1.5 * sqrt feet of antenna height above water + the same of reciving antenna minus whatever the 1st fresnel for 156mhz works out to it is not hard to see why there was no response on VHF... apparently captains of any other ships that might have normally been in range that day decided to be elsewhere...big mystery why.

Re:Not sure I understand

[WaffleMonster]

I'm a bit surprised that there aren't stations monitoring HF for emergency broadcasts. Aircraft still use HF for oceanic communications, and ships spend far more time out at sea

Me too, last time I checked (2 minutes ago) there are a shit load of them listed in Appendix B of radio navigational aids. (PUB 117)

Re:Not sure I understand

[Rich0]

I was referring more to low-bitrate digital modes, not things like digital transmission of voice.

When you think about it, morse code is essentially a digital transmission mode already, but without any kind of data correction/optimization/etc.

If all you need to transmit is a few hundred bytes of data encoding an SOS and your position, I'd think that a digital mode would be able to do that in far more harsh conditions assuming that everything was optimized for this purpose.

Re:Not sure I understand

[WaffleMonster]

There are. It doesn't do any good if the radio doesn't work, or the antenna blew down, though.

Which obviously was not the case because they were able to send email using the same frequencies.

Re:Not sure I understand

[msauve]

You obviously don't know the difference between a marine radio and a ham radio, that they are made to use different frequencies, or that they would use different antennas, tuned for the different frequencies.

Re:Not sure I understand

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously don't know the difference between a marine radio and a ham radio, that they are made to use different frequencies, or that they would use different antennas, tuned for the different frequencies.

While I'm sure they exist I've never seen a HAM radio that can transmit HF also exclude marine HF bands. Maybe some models have software lockouts but I have never seen one that does.

Going the other direction is a different story most marine HF radios are locked down heavily. Marine HF use requires practically nothing of the operator in terms of certification. There are just a couple of forms to fill out and thats that.

Re:Not sure I understand

[stridebird]

The really ridiculous thing is that emergency locator beacons have almost become commodities these days. If I were to become a pilot I'd almost certainly invest in one. From what I've read the newer digital ones use pulsed transmissions designed to penetrate cloud cover.

Indeed. No mention of any EPIRB units on board? That is very unusual.

Not so sure about the cloud cover issue though. Are you mixing up laser flares?

Re:Not sure I understand

[Rich0]

Not so sure about the cloud cover issue though. Are you mixing up laser flares?

To be honest I couldn't find a great deal of documentation about modern locator beacon performance under heavy clouds online. I did find one article that suggested that they're designed to work through heavy clouds.

Anybody who has used satellite TV can testify that in general high-frequency communications through clouds to satellites is iffy. 400MHz is moderately high in frequency, but not nearly as high as what is used for TV and such. Many of the satellites used for location are also in low orbit which is also not the case with TV.

I'm sure somebody had to have given thought to the problem of ensuring a satellite could pick up the locator transmission if it was triggered during a storm.

Remember:

[jodido]

Nature bats last

Re:Remember:

[dffuller]

This isn't funny, it's informative.

a tragedy all around

[onyxruby]

The ship was originally built as a movie prop, cool to look at but lacking substance. It had decades of trouble as a result since it was of dubious seaworthiness for a very long time. The ship never should have been allowed to skirt maritime law the way it did.

The captain meant well, but his ship wasn't the measure of the dreams that sailed it. The Coast Guard needs to examine how this tragedy was ever allowed to persist for so long and change the law to make sure it never happens again. The loophole that allowed this ship to sail needs closed and the other such ships need safely regulated to museum duty.

Re:a tragedy all around

[russotto]

It was sailed for 50 years and only sunk because Capt Dumbass sailed it into a hurricane. Pretty good for a museum piece.

Re:a tragedy all around

[ceoyoyo]

No, it doesn't. Just because a bunch of people who took a risk died doesn't mean we need to make laws to stop it in the future.

When you go to sea you take some risk, under any circumstances. People doing that should take responsibility for it. It's not the coast guard or the government's job to make sure people who make stupid decisions don't get hurt.

Re:a tragedy all around

[khallow]

The ship never should have been allowed to skirt maritime law the way it did.

Why? Even if everyone had died, it wouldn't have been a big deal. People die all the time no matter how much regulation is out there.

Re:a tragedy all around

[mysidia]

The captain meant well, but his ship wasn't the measure of the dreams that sailed it.

People do stupid shit, and put themselves in danger -- and they have a right to do so. We don't need to change the law in this case.

His crew understood or should have understood the risks.

The knowledge of the tragedy should serve as a bigger deterrant than any to sailors who would otherwise be so fool-hardy as to sail within reach of a hurricane.

Re: a tragedy all around

[Anonymous Coward]

She was built as a ship to be used in a movie. She was built as an exact replica, though scaled up for better sea keeping and to allow more space for filming.

Re:a tragedy all around

[ShanghaiBill]

The loophole that allowed this ship to sail needs closed and the other such ships need safely regulated to museum duty.

The solution to every problem is not more laws, more regulation, and more bureaucrats. If we are going to progress as a species, we need fewer laws that protect people from their own stupidity, so Darwinism can take its course.

Re:a tragedy all around

[MightyMartian]

Please explain precisely how laws stop Darwinan selection from working. As well explain why a society should be governed by are likely buffoonishly simplistic versions of natural selection.

Re:a tragedy all around

[Rich0]

I have to agree. I'm all for regulating passenger travel, because passengers don't have the opportunity to go do a walk-around of their aircraft before boarding, and even if they did they wouldn't know what to look for.

However, if some idiot wants to take their Cessna up in a hurricane then my main concern is for the home that he ends up crashing into. That isn't as much of a concern for a ship out at sea.

As long as everybody on the ship could be expected to understand the risks they were taking, then it was their choice to make.

Re:a tragedy all around

[Anonymous Coward]

When you go to sea you take some risk, under any circumstances. People doing that should take responsibility for it. It's not the coast guard or the government's job to make sure people who make stupid decisions don't get hurt.

Meanwhile, back in my universe, it is the legal mission of the Coast Guard to save your ass when you are in trouble at sea. So if they have a vested interest in making sure that people get into shipwrecks less often, why the hell shouldn't the Coast Guard and government be able to make laws and regulations that learn from past maritime mistakes? Extensive experience shows that regulation does improve transportation safety (see for instance the airline industry).

Re:a tragedy all around

[fermion]

People get killed all the time. Car accidents, jumping off the roof, drinking too much, etc.It is probably useful to have laws against such behavior, but really if dumb people are going to be dumb, we can't stop. The only problem is who is going to pay fot the rescue and medical bills. For instance, helmets are a personal issue, but a great deal of the medical expense for riders who don't wear helmets are paid by the taxpayer.

tThe other thing is that many people have no experience with a hurricane, at least with hurricanes near the tropics. Sandy was uncommon and not something that the eastern seaboard, especially that far from the tropic, was used to. If people have never seen something, it is hard to know how devastating it is.

Re:a tragedy all around

[Target Drone]

Just because a bunch of people who took a risk died doesn't mean we need to make laws to stop it in the future.

Except in this case it was the captain who took the risk doing minimal maintenance on the ship and trying to "use" the hurricane winds rather then going east around the storm. It's not like the captain held a meeting, explained the situation and took a vote before changing course.

This reminds me of the B-25 that crashed into the Empire State Building killing the pilot and 13 other people. The pilot was advised by the airport of zero visibility but chose to try and land anyway. If I remember right a law was passed after this accident saying that a pilot could no longer choose to ignore an air traffic controller.

Re:a tragedy all around

[ceoyoyo]

The summary makes it sound like they were exploiting a loophole in the regulations or something. The Bounty was simply not registered to carry paying passengers (just like the vast majority of private vessels). The crew were most definitely crew. Almost all of them were experienced sailors and, except for one retired volunteer, were all being paid.

It's hard to say what happened without more information, but it sounds like the captain took a risk and paid for it. The crew was consulted before they left, and given the chance to jump ship with no hard feelings.

Re:a tragedy all around

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't say this with a straight face knowing full well - that the government usually ends up cleaning up these kinds of disasters. Even if the Coast Guard didn't fly out there to rescue these guys (as your hinting at) the wreckage will still have to be dealt with as a hinderance to navigation as it washes ashore.

Re:a tragedy all around

[Hal_Porter]

It's interesting how as soon as you socialise the costs of things going wrong you have a case for banning behaviour that is likely to go wrong.

E.g. if we both buy health insurance privately I don't really care if you live an unhealthy lifestyle. If we have a national health service I do because people who live an unhealthy lifestyle will end up hogging resources to the point where I won't be able to get treated.

Re:a tragedy all around

[ceoyoyo]

Actually, that's exactly what he did. Reported in the first section of the article. Except you don't "hold a vote" on a ship. The captain tells you where the ship is going and you have the chance to quit if you feel it's too dangerous. The crew had that chance and nobody decided to quit.

Yes, the captain sounds reckless. If he had survived it seems likely his license would be in jeopardy, as it should be. If he did knowingly take an unseaworthy vessel to sea there are already laws against that.

Re:a tragedy all around

[ceoyoyo]

Not quite. "Minimizing the loss of life, injury, property damage or loss by rendering aid to persons in distress and property in the maritime environment has always been a Coast Guard priority." If you get yourself in trouble and it's dangerous for the coast guard to come and get you, they will tell you they can't help you until conditions improve. That happens all the time. If they do fish you out and you were doing something stupid, you might just get a bill for it. Or you might be criminally charged. If you're a professional, your license could be revoked.

There are already LOTS of marine regulations, particularly regarding commercial ships. At some point somebody has to make the decision to go out or not. In this case that decision was made by a properly licensed captain for the ship, and by fifteen experienced sailors for themselves.

Re:a tragedy all around

[Dishevel]

How about NO.
Let us not make a new law to cover idiots that want to die.
How about this. Lets just move on. People are allowed to take risks. Risk equals danger.
You nanny ass motherfuckers piss me off. People like you are the reason that society sucks so badly.
We do not need a law for this. We do not need to regulate people jumping out of airplanes.
We do not need to regulate people jumping off cliffs.
We do not need to regulate people owning guns.
We do not need to regulate what people eat.
We do not need to regulate smoking.
We do not need to regulate drinking.
We do not need to regulate these things as they tend to self regulate once the stupid die off.

Re:a tragedy all around

[msauve]

"Almost all of them were experienced sailors "

Well, about that...

Walbridge had decades at sea. Svendsen had worked tall ships prior to Bounty. The rest of the crew- so far it seems â" had an experience base of one:

The third mate, Dan Cleveland (25), came aboard from a career in landscaping. Bounty was his first wooden tall ship.
The Bosun, Laura Groves (28), had experience on smaller boats in the Keys. Bounty was her first wooden tall ship.
Joshua Scornavacchi (25), was on his first wooden tall ship.
Second mate Matt Sanders (37) had worked on a series of ships, including the schooner Margaret Todd, but Bounty was (wait for it) his first wooden tall ship.
Testifying Wednesday morning was Anna Sprague (20); of course it was her first wooden tall ship.
Claudene Christian (42) , was on her first wooden tall ship.

When the new cook, Jessica Black (34), put on her immersion suit to abandon ship on the 29th of October, she had been aboard Bounty - her first wooden tall ship - for a grand total of 45 hours.

-- Bounty hearings.

"The summary makes it sound like they were exploiting a loophole in the regulations or something. "

There's more...including

The witness, Todd Kosakowski, looked at Coast Guard's evidence... Mr. Kosakowski - the lead shipwright and project manager for Boothbay Harbor Shipyards - was in charge of the last maintenance project ever to be done on Bounty...

The pictures were of rotted frames and fasteners (trunnels) he found under the planking during repairs. Kosakowski told NTSB investigator Captain Rob Jones that he believes 75% of the framing above the waterline on Bounty may have been rotten, but that the ship's representative in the yard, Captain Robin Walbridge, declined any further search for rotted wood...

Bounty was in a sort of regulatory no-man's-land. She was a recreational vessel, a well-crewed yacht, and it was none of big brother's business how she was maintained. Two things were making that true: 1. She wasn't nearly configured to pass inspection as a Coast Guard certificated passenger vessel, and 2: She was measured at under 300 regulatory tons - and that meant she didn't need an international load line certificate.

the rest of it is an interesting read, with more detail than the CNN article. No, they weren't an experienced crew, and yes, they were playing loose with the rules.

Re:a tragedy all around

[Dishevel]

Laws do not stop natural selection.
We just start selecting for different things.
Like the ability to breed with no funds or education.

Re:a tragedy all around

[MightyMartian]

Are you seriously asserting that most humans have had funds or an education?

Re:a tragedy all around

[Target Drone]

I'm not sure how much of a choice the crew had

There was no mention of future employment on the Bounty for departing crew, the third mate testified, nor did the captain offer to pay expenses home.

So the crew would probably have lost a job they love.

They trusted the skipper almost without question.

Further more they had no reason to doubt that the captain was doing anything too reckless when they made the decision to stay. However, halfway into the voyage

Around 9:30 a.m. on Saturday, October 27, about 300 miles east of Virginia Beach, Virginia, the captain made his move: Instead of continuing with his original plan to stay east of the storm, he ordered the crew to change course. He wanted to pilot the ship northwest of Sandy to harness its winds. Turning more westerly, the boat crossed the path of the oncoming hurricane.

I think a lot of labour laws get passed because of incidents like this. People on the job don't speak up because they fear loosing their job and what their being asked to do doesn't seem (at the time) all that risky and they also trust their boss who has way more experience. However, if you pass a law saying that workers must wear a safety harness, must follow air traffic controllers orders or can not sail into the path of a hurricane then it seems to jar people to their senses. Bosses are reluctant to order employees to do something illegal and employees are reluctant to follow an illegal order.

In a perfect world we'd just have a set of guidelines to follow. However, in reality it seems that people ignore guidelines and a law is the only way to get them to realize that something is a really stupid idea.

Re:a tragedy all around

[ceoyoyo]

There are already laws about what orders are legal for a captain to give, and what options crew have.

People have been working these issues out in a modern legal way for several hundred years and in a less modern way for a few thousand before that. Maritime law is VERY mature. It doesn't need some knee jerk regulation inspired by one shipwreck.

If a captain is found to have endangered the safety of his ship and crew he can be punished, including loss of his license and jail time. He doesn't get to hide behind a regulation like a regular boss (but I TOLD them to use safety harnesses....)

At a higher level, people need to quit acting like serfs. If your boss tells you to do something dangerous, illegal or immoral, don't do it. Or go ahead and do it, but accept that the responsibility is yours.

Re:a tragedy all around

[ceoyoyo]

You've enumerated their experience on tall ships. Rereading the article, it sounds like ALL of them were experienced sailors, with the possible exception of the electrician, who may or may not have been. Anybody with any knowledge of sailing at all knows that hurricanes are dangerous and anybody with more than basic knowledge, which all of these people had, should know that things like a cluttered, messy engine room and a captain who likes purposely sailing into hurricanes are bad news.

The inexperience of the crew on tall ships in general, and that one in particular SHOULD have weighed heavily in the captain's decision to go to sea in bad weather, but it's not a get out of responsibility free card for the crew for going with him.

Re:a tragedy all around

[freedom_surfer]

You are socializing costs in either example and in both cases you pay more if people live unhealthy lifestyles.

Re:a tragedy all around

[Ambassador Kosh]

So long as you only harm yourself I agree.

I do think we need laws about you smoking around other people though. That is something I find very annoying how can you be sitting somewhere and someone will come up to you and smoke. They have the right to harm themselves, they don't have the right to harm you.

Everyone on this ship basically had informed consent. I have no issues with what they did nor do we need laws against it. The coast card should be paid though by the person that owned the ship though for the costs of the rescue since what they where doing was pretty stupid.

Owning guns is another problematic one. The problem is it places others at risk that are not the person making the stupid decision. However I also think that with 3D printers getting more advanced that issue is largely one that is not longer possible to regulate and needs to be solved other ways that regulation. Mostly I think we need better education systems and other societal systems in place to deal with violence so people don't feel a need to have guns. So don't take them away, don't regulate them away, try to create an environment where people no longer see the need for them and they just don't get them anymore.

Re:a tragedy all around

[I'm New Around Here]

So long as you only harm yourself I agree.

I do think we need laws about you smoking around other people though. That is something I find very annoying how can you be sitting somewhere and someone will come up to you and smoke. They have the right to harm themselves, they don't have the right to harm you.

As someone who doesn't smoke, I hate your argument and entire line of reasoning. I don't need your government forcing people to accommodate my personal desires related to smoking cigarettes. Forcing all businesses to go smoke-free is asinine. Especially since every business had the opportunity to be smoke-free by their own decision, and almost none did. A few restaurants and nightclubs tried, and changed their mind when revenue plunged.

I find it strange that only about 20% of adults smoke, but a restaurant that bans smoking loses business to the others that allow it. How is 80% of a possible customer base not enough to keep a restaurant afloat? I'm not saying 80% of their former customers, but the base number of potential customers. It seems lie all the people who want smoking banned would flock to such a location. But they all follow the crowds into the smoke-filled restaurants where "the cool people" hang out.

As for the "they don't have the right to harm you" line, if you actually believed that you would be calling for a ban on driving. Cars have hurt me far more than second hand smoke has.

Re:a tragedy all around

[jewens]

In theory in the private health insurance scenario, Mr. Unhealthy will pay more for his than Hal_Porter therefor he is not penalized for Mr. U's lifestyle. Under the national health service scenario HP probably ends up paying more than Mr. U once he ends up on permanent disability due to his poor lifestyle. That's fair right?

Re:a tragedy all around

[Anonymous Coward]

Not necessarily - if the lifestyle can be actuarially assessed, then you are only socializing the costs within equivalent risk pools and once again you don't care about what they do.

Re:a tragedy all around

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless the argument is that unhealthy people won't get treated or cost society in any capacity without a 'national health service' the costs are still socialized one way or the other.

Re:a tragedy all around

[Shinobi]

The problem was that the captain had a cult of personality around him, and only chose crew who responded to his projected image of resolve and competence. There was also the factor of feelings of duty etc, that to have stayed on land would have been dereliction of duty, abandoning their comrades etc.(Something many in the US falls for entirely, even in mundane things such as work, easily being conned into working unpaid overtime etc...)

The general consensus on Sailing Anarchy was that the captain was a nut, they even managed to dig up an interview with him where he stated that he chased hurricanes.

Re:a tragedy all around

[Runaway1956]

Spot on. Few Americans seem to have any appreciation for Maritime Law, which is far older than the United States.

Re:a tragedy all around

[Runaway1956]

I could make a serious assertion that most BREEDING humans have had funds, of one kind or another. Especially breeding males. Have you ever heard of a dowry? A guy who can't pay the bride-price will have a tougher time finding a mate. And, "education" is relative. Other societies educate their youth according to their own needs. Go back 300 or more years, right here in America. A young man who failed to learn to hunt and fish wasn't likely to feed a family very well. The young women looking for a mate would have taken that into account, and probably turned him down.

Re:a tragedy all around

[Runaway1956]

" But they all follow the crowds into the smoke-filled restaurants where "the cool people" hang out."

LMAO - you're right. People are funny. They pretend to hate so many things about other people, but they follow those people around because they are cool.

I drove truck for several years. The CB radio frequently had dickheads on, badmouthing drivers for this reason or that. They HATED truck drivers! But - they invested in a CB radio so that they could talk to us. They frequented truck stops and trucker's restaurants to be around truckers. Warped, huh?

Then, we have motorcycles. Many, many people hate motorcycles. They say we're braindead for riding, we're irresponsible, we're loud and obnoxious, and more. But, they are always watching us. I think that they just wish they had the balls to be like us.

I guess I must be cool. I do my own thing, and give little consideration to what people think.

Oh yeah - I'm a smoker too.

Re:a tragedy all around

[Hal_Porter]

Private health insurance means that everyone pays a premium dependent on their risk level. An NHS type system means people pay a premium based on their income level.

So with private health insurance I don't really care if you live an unhealthy lifestyle. With an NHS type system I do - my taxes will need to go up.

In fact in the UK there have been proposals to remove NHS treatment for people who injure themselves when drunk

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theoneshow/2010/02/should-boozers-foot-the-bill-f.shtml

I work for the NHS on the frontline, and binge drinking is a huge problem, but you can't charge drinkers, unless you charge the smokers and the fatties for the illness their choices cause. You'd even have to charge sportsmen who damange their ligaments running!

http://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2012-03-07/health-trusts-restrict-treatment-to-those-with-unhealthy-lifestyles/

A nationwide Freedom of Information request by the medical magazine Pulse revealed many types of surgery, MRI scans and IVF treatment are being withheld from obese people and smokers.

In the Anglia region, NHS Bedfordshire has barred obese patients from hip and knee surgery until they loss 10% of their weight or their Body Mass Index drops below 35.

NHS North Essex requires patients to lose at least 5% of their weight, and keep it off for 6 months.

While NHS Hertfordshire patients must have a BMI under 30, while smokers have to attend a stop smoking course to have any type of surgery.

Lawyers warn that health authorities risk being sued by patients if they can prove they've been discriminated against.

It's particularly risky in places like the UK where the rich pay most of the income taxes but the poor tend to have unhealthy lifestyles.

E.g.

http://fullfact.org/factchecks/tax-28258

In 2009-10, the top 1% of Income Tax payers were responsible for 13.9% of declared income before tax. Conversely, the same group paid some 26.5% of the money taken by HMRC in Income Tax. These figures are very close to those cited by Mr Redwood, albeit slightly different.

and

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9819607/Minister-poor-families-are-likely-to-be-obese.html

According to Department of Health figures, the poorest children are almost twice as likely to be obese than the richest.

Government figures published last month showed that 24.3 per cent of the most deprived 11 year-olds in England were obese, compared with just 13.7 per cent of children from the wealthiest homes.

There's a strong incentive for the rich to support an authoritarian model whereby NHS treatment is withheld from the obese and smokers simply because the rich are less likely to be in that category.

Incidentally if you add in VAT and duty on tobacco and alcohol you find that the poor pay about the same percentage of their income in tax as the rich

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/household-income/the-effects-of-taxes-and-benefits-on-household-income/2009-2010/data---the-effects-of-taxes-and-benefits-on-household-income.xls Table 3

Still despite that there is an incentive for NHS trusts to deny treatment to people with unhealthy lifestyles - it cuts down on the expensive medical care you need to provide.

It's like in the US where you pay your premiums and then get denied treatme

Re:a tragedy all around

[coastwalker]

Smoker hate is so last century. Its the anti fat bastards laws that we need to be considering now. Why should fat people pay the same for aeroplane seats and why should health insurance insure them at all because we must be subsidizing them with their self inflicted diabetes and heart disease. Heck I don't understand why we haven't passed a law to prevent sick people being treated by our medical system completely. After all most of the sick people brought it on themselves. I would make a law so that only people who can run better than a 9 minute mile and on no account show up at a doctors with any visible sign of illness. Its fucking ridiculous how we waste money on treating sick people instead of looking after the righteous well.

Re:a tragedy all around

[Anonymous Coward]

if we both buy health insurance privately I don't really care if you live an unhealthy lifestyle. If we have a national health service I do because people who live an unhealthy lifestyle will end up hogging resources to the point where I won't be able to get treated.

You incorrectly assume that the private insurance company somehow bins its risk groups such that the premiums paid by high risk individuals cover the costs of the high risk group, while the low risk premiums only have to pay for the low-risk payouts. In actual reality, even in private insurance, the low-risk ratepayers subsidize the high-risk receivers.

But this has very little to do with shipwrecks and poor yacht maintenance

Re:a tragedy all around

[dunkelfalke]

Well, over here, after an initial drop, the restaurant business became actually better after the anti-smoke laws because people (like me for example) who previously opted to stay at home due to the tobacco smoke harassment actually started eating out.

Re:a tragedy all around

[drinkypoo]

The problem was that the captain had a cult of personality around him, and only chose crew who responded to his projected image of resolve and competence.

So what you're saying is... no great loss. Easily led sheep will be easily led in any direction. Anyone who'd been on a tall ship for two days and decided to sail into a storm that was broadly considered to be one of the most dangerous things we'd seen in some time is a moron who should be prevented from passing on their genetics by any means necessary.

Re: a tragedy all around

[tburkhol]

Hollywood replicas are built to be external replicas.

They do not necessarily use the internal framing that would have made the original Bounty worthy of Cape Horn. They do not necessarily use the same materials (esp, type of wood) that would have made the original Bounty worthy of Cape Horn. They do not necessarily do maintenance that would have kept the original Bounty seaworthy for 20 years. And they do not necessarily take the ship out of service when rot and decay of natural materials cause skyrocketing maintenance costs to make the vessel un-economical to operate.

This is a common tragedy among both replica and historical tallships: the costs of maintaining them in condition for rough weather are astronomical and the receipts from tourists, day sails, and historical programs are rarely close to those costs. You make compromises, like being sure to steer clear of rough weather because you know how much more water comes in when the seams work, but you try to get as much sea time as possible. Spend enough time at sea, and maybe you start discounting the fundamental structural weakness. Fundamental structural weakness means that one point of failure, which might otherwise be inconvenient, becomes catastrophic. I can see myself in the crew's position, and I know that I would have made the choice to stay aboard.

Re:a tragedy all around

[drinkypoo]

I'm not sure how much of a choice the crew had

There was no mention of future employment on the Bounty for departing crew, the third mate testified, nor did the captain offer to pay expenses home.

So the crew would probably have lost a job they love.

You have utterly failed to address the issue at hand, whether the crew had a choice as to whether to do a very stupid and almost certainly deadly thing. They chose to do it.

They trusted the skipper almost without question.

Further more they had no reason to doubt that the captain was doing anything too reckless when they made the decision to stay. However, halfway into the voyage

Yes, they had every reason to doubt. It made no sense to go out at that time, period.

I think a lot of labour laws get passed because of incidents like this. People on the job don't speak up because they fear loosing their job and what their being asked to do doesn't seem (at the time) all that risky

Great, then we get some jerk-off labor laws that only benefit a certain class. We wouldn't even need them if we had a COLA or some other means of making sure that people's basic needs are met. Individual jobs are not slavery, the entire system is slavery.

Re:a tragedy all around

[drinkypoo]

Smoker hate is so last century. Its the anti fat bastards laws that we need to be considering now. Why should fat people pay the same for aeroplane seats and why should health insurance insure them at all because we must be subsidizing them with their self inflicted diabetes and heart disease.

Because the US government spent literally hundreds of millions of The People's money lying to us about what we should eat. Start here and work your way forward. (There is a "rebuttal" to the article, and a rebuttal to the rebuttal, and then there are followup articles...)

Re:a tragedy all around

[Hal_Porter]

In actual reality, even in private insurance, the low-risk ratepayers subsidize the high-risk receivers.

Depends on the insurance company doesn't it? I know there are companies that offer lower premiums to lower risk insurees - e.g. older drivers.

If you have an environment where multiple companies are competing there is an incentive to limit risk pooling in order to be more able to offer lower premiums.

Re:a tragedy all around

[Shinobi]

Given your stated views on OSS philosophy, you could also be one of those "easily led sheep", just in another spectrum, so be careful about what generalisations you toss around. People have different blind spots. Case in point, RMS. He's done very little that can be considered productive after mid-80's yet many geeks blindly follow his preaching without further questioning.

  Also, you're talking about the storm in retrospective: Many persons, even geeks here on Slashdot who should have enough physics knowledge and sense of scale, talked down the dangers of the storm with claims such as "It's just a category 1, the media is hyping it up as usual". Also consider the fact that by the time the weather reports that used an aggregate of the euro model and the normal models used in north america were getting spread in media, the ship was already out at sea, so before that, they'd already been fed a lot of "It's just hype, it won't be so bad" etc.

Multiple factors went wrong, the crew being dazzled by the captain just being one of them.

Re:a tragedy all around

[drinkypoo]

Given your stated views on OSS philosophy, you could also be one of those "easily led sheep", just in another spectrum, so be careful about what generalisations you toss around.

If my outlook on Free Software had a substantial chance of leading to my death, you might have a point other than flamebaiting.

Also, you're talking about the storm in retrospective: Many persons, even geeks here on Slashdot who should have enough physics knowledge and sense of scale, talked down the dangers of the storm

Well, no, I'm talking about what was known about the storm at the time. And frankly, as wrong as the weather report is, I'll trust what the majority of meteorologists are saying over some jerkoffs on slashdot unless they have a very compelling arguments. I don't remember any compelling arguments that it would be a minor storm. And since you brought me into this, personally, my memory is relevant.

Also consider the fact that by the time the weather reports that used an aggregate of the euro model and the normal models used in north america were getting spread in media, the ship was already out at sea, so before that, they'd already been fed a lot of "It's just hype, it won't be so bad" etc.

By the time they set out I'd already heard a lot of "It's going to be hell." If they let themselves be cut off from information in that situation, they're fools.

Multiple factors went wrong, the crew being dazzled by the captain just being one of them.

I believe in people's right to auto-euthanize. The greatest tragedy in this case is the loss of wood.

Re:a tragedy all around

[ceoyoyo]

Yup, from what I've read I think it's likely the captain was a nut too. If he had survived he would probably be facing some serious repercussions. Possibly the other ship's officers need to be punished. That's why there's been an inquiry. But everyone who went out on that ship should have been capable of assessing the danger, and was given the opportunity not to go. There are well established laws and customs governing this sort of thing. We don't need more.

On another note, I don't understand why peer pressure is not an acceptable excuse for children or for war criminals, but it is for everyone in between.

Re:a tragedy all around

[DarkOx]

I just can't get behind that sort of regulation. I don't see why we can't expect people to refuse to do something that they think will get them killed.

I mean really so what if you loose your job. Not like having money to eat will do you much good if you are a corpse.

Re:a tragedy all around

[DarkOx]

Except that does hold for the most part. As the parent poster pointed out lots of restaurants, bars, etc tried to go smoke free before most states passed laws requiring. Many ended up back pedaling because it was a huge hit to patronage.

If it was all that desirable to offer not just a segregated but entirely smoke free facility it should have given them an advantage with lots of clients. People like you should have preferred those places to other eateries and clubs. Here is Cleveland I can tell you the really popular places that are always packed tend to be the ones that where they look past folks lighting up for the most part and just pay the fines when law enforcement shows up.

Frankly I think smoking bans outside a very narrow range of facilities where people who may be especial sensitive to it may also not have a choice in being there are an unethical infringement on the freedoms of the owners. K-12 Schools, Hospitals, and places where it would pose a clear and immediate hazard like gas stations and some manufacturing plats are about the only places where the sate has a legitimate interest in banning smoking.

For the record; I am a non-smoker.

Re:a tragedy all around

[onyxruby]

Except they also put other people in danger when they do so. Other ships in the area also would have felt obligated to take a risk with their own crews to try to save the crew of the Bounty if they were in the area. The Coast Guard is obligated by law to put their own lives on the line to save people when they reasonably can. These sailors risk their life and limb often enough without someone foolishly compelling them to do so on their behalf.

You also have the dangers presented by the wreck to navigation which can cause further risk to loss and limb. More than the lives of crew were at risk and the captain would have known this, even if his crew did not. His crew had no ability to get back home, no offer of a job if they got off and would have effectively been made homeless (some lived on the ship) if they got off. This was not a democracy and the crew were not in a position to vote.

Spoken by someone that otherwise firmly believes in letting people Darwin themselves out of existence.

Re:a tragedy all around

[Ambassador Kosh]

If I am sitting somewhere already why should a smoker have the right to impose their smoke on me. I am not talking about going to where they are, I am talking about them coming to where I am at the time. I can be sitting on a bench enjoying a nice day, waiting at a bus stop etc but it becomes my job and many others jobs to move because a smoker chose that spot to light up.

Also it isn't exactly just a personal desire given that we have very good evidence on the damage of second hand smoke. They have the right to harm themselves not others and people that don't want to be harmed should not have the onus placed on them to accommodate the smokers at every turn.

Re:a tragedy all around

[MightyMartian]

Your ignorance of human history is absolutely astonishing. Your lack of even basic knowledge of how most humans have lived ther lives indicates a woeful education, and yet you would declare that as the flaw in so many others.

Education and money aren't hereditary, you idiot.

Re:a tragedy all around

[amorsen]

Be careful how you change the laws. Copenhagen Suborbitals has the sea launch platform Sputnik. That exists exactly because small ships without passengers face little regulation. Obviously changing US laws will not cause trouble for Sputnik, so in that way the example is contrived, but it would likely have been quite a hassle for Copenhagen Suborbitals to get the vessel approved. It is not exactly a typical ship, so the paperwork could end up quite substantial.

I have every reason to believe that Sputnik is safe to use, and the various crew seem to be safety-conscious to the point of being borderline paranoid. It would be a shame if red tape stopped a similar group of people in the US from making something spectacular.

Re:a tragedy all around

[Dare nMc]

In the US, I recall reading several of studies where the obese, smokers, unhealthy lifestyles saved medicare money, mostly because the typical treatments for the diseases, etc; Are lower cost, than the late in life cancer treatments, assisted living... that healthier people would live to need. Granted medicare wouldn't see all the younger costs that NHS system will.

Re:a tragedy all around

[Runaway1956]

My ignorance? Maybe you missed the "funds, of one kind or another". At what point in history, or prehistory, have women chosen guys who could not provide over guys who had food and shelter?

And, education? I provided an example of alternate education, did I not?

You get abusive, because you're incapable of understanding what I say? And, I'm the idiot?

Have a nice day, anyway.

Re:a tragedy all around

[MightyMartian]

You do understand I trust that since roman times the bulk of people in Europe were indentured workers. Damn few possessions, working land largely owned by someone else, and almost certainly no education.

You're an ignoramus. Pick up a fucking book and quit trying to make history align to your pathetic libertarianism and even more malign social Darwinism.

Re: a tragedy all around

[waimate]

I've been on this ship several times, albeit not recently. Steel below the water line.

Re:a tragedy all around

[mysidia]

Except they also put other people in danger when they do so. Other ships in the area also would have felt obligated to take a risk with their own crews to try to save the crew of the Bounty if they were in the area.

Except they most likely they wouldn't be suicidal enough to go into the area, until the storm passed.

These are possible reasons their conduct of sailing into a storm should have been prohibited, and got their captain wreckless endangerment and manslaughter charges of some sort; but not operation of theit boat. Any boat sailing so close to a hurricane would likely have been capsized.

The Coast Guard is obligated by law to put their own lives on the line to save people when they reasonably can. These sailors risk their life and limb often enough without someone foolishly compelling them to do so on their behalf

Coast guard crews are trained for rescue situations and not obligated to endanger themselves. If the hazard is too great, they may choose to wait.

His crew had no ability to get back home, no offer of a job if they got off and would have effectively been made homeless (some lived on the ship) if they got off. This was not a democracy and the crew were not in a position to vote.

The article says the crew consented.

If they had a difficult choice to make, regarding being made homeless VS putting their very life in danger, I feel sorry for them; However, they put themselves in that situation. If they couldn't trust the captain's judgement with their lives, they shouldn't have done that.

It's not the government's job to prevent people from having to make difficult choices either.

Re:a tragedy all around

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with codifying such things into law is that there are situations where it is pointless or even harmful to follow best practice. Mandatory safety harness for any work a structure more than one story high sounds sensible, but when the rooftop garden's barista is chained to her cart, or the rig-workers must "clip on" during meetings, it's a bit silly. Following air traffic control is a good idea, unless they are telling you to do something immediately terminally stupid based on wrong info. Changing course to try and outrun a storm to port looks bad if you don't make it, but if you head further off shore and it changes course, that looks stupid too.

The key thing is that after an accident, the decisions made that lead up to it are carefully examined to make sure they were made for the right reasons. Every option has risks and costs, and it's up to the person in charge to balance those and take the best course, both figuratively or literally.

Re:a tragedy all around

[I'm New Around Here]

Let me start by saying I agree with the main annoyances you are writing about. Cigarette smoke makes my throat tighten up, further aggravating a breathing problem I have. And it doesn't matter which side of a smoker I am at, the damn smoke always goes towards me. With that said, and with no animosity towards you, I still do not like your argument, and think smoking bans are the wrong solution to this problem.

If I am sitting somewhere already why should a smoker have the right to impose their smoke on me.

Because it is a legal activity. It may annoy you, and me for that matter, but it isn't illegal to smoke. Annoyance isn't enough to outlaw something.

If you think the situation is actually an attack on your health, the proper response is to have tobacco itself outlawed, not simply its use near you. I would be fine if tobacco was outlawed. But I know it won't be, because the states make too much tax money from it. This is another part of the hypocrisy (from the government this time) of banning smoking that I hate.

I am not talking about going to where they are, I am talking about them coming to where I am at the time. I can be sitting on a bench enjoying a nice day, waiting at a bus stop etc but it becomes my job and many others jobs to move because a smoker chose that spot to light up.

I do wish there was a better way to separate smokers and non-smokers in public areas. But it seems no one can come up with a sensible, and feasible, solution. Besides that, in a city, the car exhaust is far more prevalent than cigarette smoke, so to me it seems banning internal combustion cars/trucks is the better alternative.

Also it isn't exactly just a personal desire given that we have very good evidence on the damage of second hand smoke. They have the right to harm themselves not others and people that don't want to be harmed should not have the onus placed on them to accommodate the smokers at every turn.

As I say, work to have it outlawed completely. Unfortunately the non-smokers have decided to instead have it banned in all businesses, whether they have ever been in them or not. I believe that if a guy wants to open a bar, and he wants to allow people to smoke in there, it is his choice, not yours or mine. Sorry if I sound like a broken record there, but that is the only laws they have been able to pass, taking everyone's choice from them in the name of "the greater good".

Re:a tragedy all around

[Anonymous Coward]

The Coast Guard needs to examine how this tragedy was ever allowed to persist for so long and change the law to make sure it never happens again. The loophole that allowed this ship to sail needs closed and the other such ships need safely regulated to museum duty.

As long as the ship sailed with full knowledge and consent of those on board, why should ANY law stop them?

Re:a tragedy all around

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as everybody on the ship could be expected to understand the risks they were taking, then it was their choice to make.

Tell that to the coast guard who had to go out and save their asses. Think of the taxpayer money wasted and critical emergency personnel that were needed elsewhere.

Re:a tragedy all around

[Rich0]

Tell that to the coast guard who had to go out and save their asses. Think of the taxpayer money wasted and critical emergency personnel that were needed elsewhere.

Well, I'm also of the mindset that rescue personnel should not be put at risk in general. I never got the philosophy of sending a dozen rescue workers up on a mountain to die while trying to save two climbers.

If the rescue can be carried out with reasonable safety margins, then do so. If not, then wait until it can. The government shouldn't be the free insurance provider for people who do not take reasonable care of themselves.

What could possibly go wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sailing into a hurricane. Did they died?

The sea gives and the sea takes.

[santax]

Always been like that, always will be like that.

Re:lot's ships just register is places with lax la

[Anonymous Coward]

lot's ships just register is places with lax laws

This comment fails on so many levels.

took the ship's tour last year

[Anonymous Coward]

This past year the ship had docked in Bridgeport, CT and I had taken a tour with family. There were folks dressed in colonial costumes and it was quite the sight. I talked to some of the crew and they were very happy to have the chance to sail with her. Too bad some of them did not make it.

Re:took the ship's tour last year

[interval1066]

There were folks dressed in colonial costumes and it was quite the sight.

Colonial dress? Wasn't the Bounty His Majesy's Ship of the Line? The actors/actresses should have been dressed in costume common to Portsmith (Great Britain, not New Hampshire), or perhaps nude, as the natives of New Guinea.

Re:took the ship's tour last year

[interval1066]

Oops, no; the Bounty was a merchant.

Re:took the ship's tour last year

[ceoyoyo]

The Bounty was originally a merchant ship but she was purchased by the Royal Navy and named the Bounty. Proper dress aboard the Bounty would be late 18th century Royal Navy.

Re:took the ship's tour last year

[I'm New Around Here]

Maybe he simply meant "clothing/uniforms from the colonial times". And Britain had more colonies than a dozen on the northwest Atlantic coast, so that allows a broad range of possibilities.

Re:took the ship's tour last year

[Anonymous Coward]

One (1) of the crew of the Bounty was from Portsmouth. Most of them were from diverse places in the British Isles; there were one or two Americans, one German, and one West Indian.

Source

Safest at sea?

[prisoner-of-enigma]

I'm no sailor, but I've read a good bit about disasters at sea. I frequently come across the maxim that the safest place for a ship to be during a storm is at sea, the logic being a ship in port will be thrown against piers, reefs, etc. and destroyed instead of at sea where, presumably, you can sail away from or around danger. Any sailors care to weigh in on this?

Re:Safest at sea?

[The Rizz]

Maybe, maybe not ... but the safest place for a ship to be is generally not sailing towards a hurricane.

Re:Safest at sea?

[msauve]

the safest place for a ship to be during a storm is at sea

Perhaps, but that doesn't make it the safest place for the crew. I'd also guess it's also safer for the ship to be in a harbor not in the path of a hurricane than at sea in a hurricane.

Re:Safest at sea?

[mysidia]

I frequently come across the maxim that the safest place for a ship to be during a storm is at sea, the logic being a ship in port will be thrown against piers, reefs, etc. and destroyed instead of at sea where, presumably, you can sail away from or around danger. Any sailors care to weigh in on this?

The only way a ship at sea is going to properly steer around any danger, is if there are people on board. And those people will be in much more danger than if they were on land.

Damaged ships can be repaired or replaced, by spending money. Lives of lost crewmembers cannot be restored by paying money.

At sea, waves can sink the boat unrecoverably too.

At port, the boat may be at risk of damage, especially if not properly and thoroughly secured at a sufficient distance from reefs.

Re:Safest at sea?

[Anonymous Coward]

I seems to me that there's more than a few ships at the bottom of the Atlantic due to being caught in the middle of a hurricane.

Those who can't remember history are doomed to repeat it.

Re:Safest at sea?

[Above]

For large ships, where large is defined as unable to be easily lifted out of the water and stored on land, it is safer for them to be out to sea.

But out to sea does not mean in a hurricane. Out to sea means leaving in advance of the storm such that the ship can get well away from the most severe weather. Large commercial ships go nowhere near these sorts of weather events, it's better to sail a week out of the way to go around than risk losing a large boat.

Dude wanted to get where he was going. Had he left and gone due east, towards Europe, the boat would have been no where near this storm when it hit the eastern seaboard. He could have then turned around and gone to his destination, perhaps a week late, but alive after a nice cruise.

Re:Safest at sea?

[Longjmp]

First off, I don't consider myself a sailor, but I have crossed the Atlantic Ocean a few times on my 48 ft boat.
So, let's see: If you are caught in a storm, there's no way going near a coast. Waves will throw you onto the beach (if you are lucky) or onto a cliff. In first case you'll kill a few of your crew. In second, you'll kill all, including yourself.
Same goes for a harbor. No way even trying to come near.
That said, I never encountered a hurricane, and I wonder if the Bounty's captain was either incompetent (as to read forecasts), or simply overwhelmed by the speed of the hurricane (which in a way implies incompetence as well.)
In either way, once caught in a storm, you certainly do not try to reach a harbor.

Re:Safest at sea?

[interval1066]

Rogue waves are common during a storm and dangerous for ships.

Re:Safest at sea?

[swillden]

That said, I never encountered a hurricane, and I wonder if the Bounty's captain was either incompetent (as to read forecasts), or simply overwhelmed by the speed of the hurricane

The way I read it, he knew the hurricane was coming and decided to leave port anyway. I don't know that you can even call that incompetence. More like just utter stupidity.

Re:Safest at sea?

[Rich0]

If you're talking about a Tsunami, then sure (assuming you can get reasonably far out in time).

If you're talking about a hurricane, then no. A very large ship would do better at sea then in the dock, but if the ship is docked there is no need for the crew to stay aboard. A hurricane tends to destroy property, but it isn't THAT dangerous to people who aren't near the coastline, especially if they find any kind of shelter. Oh, a few idiots who decide to go driving around town might get hit by flying debris and killed, but they'll fare far better in general than somebody sitting in a boat.

Re:Safest at sea?

[Longjmp]

I tend to agree.
I think he was trying to safe the ship rather than thinking about the crew.
Just my own opinion though.

Re:Safest at sea?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, you're on Slashdot.

You're not going to find anyone who knows their arse from a stuns'l.

Re:Safest at sea?

[Capt. Skinny]

I frequently come across the maxim that the safest place for a ship to be during a storm is at sea... where, presumably, you can sail away from or around danger

I'm sure the safest place to be during an bank robbery is outside and down the road, but I'm probably not going to run past the guy with the gun to get there.

Re:Safest at sea?

[Anonymous Coward]

waves during a storm aren't rogue. They're waves. Rogue waves are the ones that appear suddenly, without warning.

Re:Safest at sea?

[mysidia]

In either way, once caught in a storm, you certainly do not try to reach a harbor.

The point is, if your boat is already at harbor, get your crew off the boat, and leave it properly secured; don't continue with your planned departure.

If you know there is a storm, and you are at sea: don't steer into it, or anywhere near its potential path.

If you're in its path, get out of its path.

If you've gotten into a serious storm already while at sea, may be basically screwed, or you just have to ride it out, because storms can be very large, and you have limited possible chances of escape...

That's not because at sea is the best place to be though, it's because you got stuck there, and there are no safe means of escape available, other than sailng out of reach of the storm (which may not be feasible to do within sufficient time period before the storm blows over)

Re:Safest at sea?

[Anonymous Coward]

Googling around, I read some speculation that the captain may have been worried that the Bounty was a sitting duck for Sandy in its berth at New London CT, and furthermore, there was no nearby harbor where it could be protected. So he gambled his crew's lives to save his ship. Not sure whether he had a direct financial stake in the boat though, other than his job as captain.

Re:Safest at sea?

[DFurno2003]

I spent 8 years in the Navy, 2 of which were as a deck seaman on an LHA (800 footer). 4 years were spent in Norfolk VA doing coastal water patrol and the other 2 were spent as harbor security on Guam. I have experienced a few storms underway and i can assure you there is nothing good to be had in a hurricane at sea. Getting underway to escape a harbor (and sail around the storm) is common practice Getting underway and deliberately sailing into a storm to increase speed on a janky vessel with a crew of limited knowledge and experience is simple incompetence.

Re:Safest at sea?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sailor here, I've spent a good portion of my life at sea on sailing craft, my own, and other peoples and doing deliveries.
The maxim of sending ships to sea at the approach of a major storm applies to large naval ships. Mostly as a precaution in case of damage to harbors. To a lesser extent also to large commercial ships, tankers, cargo, container, etc.
Capt.Walbridge committed a broach of one the most important rules of the sea; Never sail to set schedule (unless you are a naval or Coast Guard vessel). The bottom of the sea is littered with boats whose skippers "had to be" someplace by a certain time. He made another mistake in assuming that Sandy was just another Category 2 hurricane that he could easily skirt and pick up speed by catapulting around the outside the eye. He ignored (even though he supposedly mentioned "a Frankingstorm") the week old reports of the hurricane meeting a warm storm front from the west and a nor'easter from northeast.
The ship may have had some maintenance problems, but it is very likely that had he not placed it in the middle of such a huge storm (that was forecast days in advance) it would have made the voyage intact.

Re:Safest at sea?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the captain deemed New London not to be safe he could have headed up river or to hurricane barrier in Providence or New Bedford

Re:Safest at sea?

[I'm New Around Here]

So...

How was Guam?

Re:Safest at sea?

[I'm New Around Here]

You ever notice in movies, a guy pulls a gun out and fires a shot in a large public area, and the idiots on the left run to the right, and the idiots on the right run to the left?

I hope in real life everyone's path is more or less away from the man waving the gun around.

Re:Safest at sea?

[rtfa-troll]

waves during a storm aren't rogue. They're waves. Rogue waves are the ones that appear suddenly, without warning.

Rogue waves can happen during a storm just as at any other time. The definition is simply that the wave is exceptional compared to the current height of waves. Obviously, a wave which is more than twice the significant wave height during a storm is going to be much more dangerous than a similarly exceptional wave on a calm day.

Furthermore, most rogue waves seem to involve nonlinear effects. This means that larger waves are more likely to trigger them and means that they actually probably are more likely to happen in a storm.

Re:Safest at sea?

[Runaway1956]

My preference during a storm is to be far out at sea, or ashore on leave, and far from the ship. I most certainly DO NOT want to be within 50 miles of the coast, hoping that the storm doesn't force us into some rocks, or some other hazard - like the beach.

I guess the closest I've ever been to an officially designated hurricane was - ohh - maybe 300 miles. I'm guessing, we could have been closer than that, plotting courses and keeping charts wasn't part of my job.

But, I rode a destroyer around and around in the North Atlantic and the North Sea during winter. For three weeks straight, we experienced sea states over 50. In such conditions, it's impossible to get any rest, even if you can find time to lie in your bunk. After just a couple days, you're a zombie!

http://www.syqwestinc.com/support/Sea%20State%20Table.htm

Re:Safest at sea?

[Runaway1956]

Ooooohhhh - round bottomed boat, right? I never wanted to be aboard one, storm or no storm. I seldom saw one in the area of a storm, but the ride looked like it would suck.

Re:Safest at sea?

[Anonymous Coward]

The weather guys kept marvelling about how large and spread out Sandy was. Maybe the captain was afraid that he couldn't escape the storm to the east, and that's why he altered course. That was before Sandy turned west.

Re:Safest at sea?

[Muad'Dave]

Sea state 50??? From that chart sea state 50 would extrapolate to 52,359,324,110 ft waves! [From that table it looks like wave height is approx 1.63825 ^ n] That's 40% of the distance to Venus!

Re:Safest at sea?

[Runaway1956]

Derp-a-derp - just call me a dumbass. Sometimes I allow my fingers to run away from my brain, and I haven't typed what I thought - sorry.

The 50 is the size of the waves, when the sea state is 8. Sorry bout that. :(

Re:Safest at sea?

[garyebickford]

First off, I don't consider myself a sailor, but I have crossed the Atlantic Ocean a few times on my 48 ft boat.

As a less-experienced but reasonably well read (for whatever that is worth) sailor, I would say that is possibly the wisest thing I've read on this thread. If you ever need crew, give me a PM. I'm working on repairs to the hull of my 40 foot motorsailer, and have done a small amount of offshore crewing.

From what I've read, it's true that for bigger boats especially, if you're going to be caught in a hurricane, it's safer being out at sea than close to all those hard things that the shore involves. But that does assume the boat is seaworthy. In this case that was (as we now know) a fatal assumption - or more likely, vain hope. In this case, I think the best thing to do would have been to dock or anchor the boat as well as can be done and remove all the crew to a hotel, and hope rather vainly that the boat would survive. But they probably didn't have the necessary lines to tie it down, nor a good 'hurricane hole' to go to. At least the crew would not have been in jeopardy. Sometimes it's necessary to put life and limb ahead of assets.

Re:Safest at sea?

[garyebickford]

Well put! :D

Re:Safest at sea?

[cwsumner]

I grew up in Charleston, South Carolina. Whenever a hurricane approached, many ships would leave harbor to avoid the storm.

But if any Skipper announced he was going to sail -into- the storm, I think he would have been hauled off to the State Mental Hospital.

On the other hand, it is known that the fresh winds after a hurricane are useful for sailing. Could it be that the storm changed direction and suprised a captain who thought it had well passed?

Also, it sounds like it was survivable until the ship was hit by what was probably a rough wave...

Subordination

[Mister Liberty]

Might have saved lives.
Then again, we have to have subordinates -- I mean, ... don't we?

Christian? any relation to Fletcher?

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Lt Fletcher Christian, deputy to Captain William Bligh, commander of HMS Bounty, was the leader of mutineers of the Bounty. Interesting coincidence if there is another Christian on board on the replica. Was he a descendant?

Re:Christian? any relation to Fletcher?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good catch. The CNN article says that Claudene Christian claimed she was a descendant of Fletcher Christian. Almost as if a Hollywood scriptwriter had chosen the two people that died.

Re:Christian? any relation to Fletcher?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes she was

A live summary of the sinking can be found at http://blog.halifaxshippingnews.ca/2012/10/tall-ship-bounty-in-trouble.html

Mario Vittone also gave a good summary of the hearings http://gcaptain.com/bounty-hearings-chief-mates-testifies

Re:Christian? any relation to Fletcher?

[Anonymous Coward]

Full Bounty Hearings Coverage on gCaptain.com:

• Day 8: The Whole Truth
• Day 7: The 17th Passenger
• Day 6: The Cost of Waiting
• Day 5: Sins of Omission
• Day 4: The Illusion of Experience
• Day 3: Testimony Highlights the Complexity
• Day 2: Rotted Frames on Bounty
• Day 1: Chief Mate Testifies

Your answer will be slanted

[Mister Liberty]

Any sailors care to weigh in on this?

You do realize that those that can't, probably have their
remains scattered upon the sea floor, don't you?

Guess next time, the crew will...

[Nyder]

mutiny!

Re:This is obviously not me... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

STFU

Ship's frame was rotted

[WaxlyMolding]

Local media reported here that the ship was in for service at Boothbay, Maine before this occured. The captain was informed that the ship's framing timbers were rotted and needed replacement. They opted to not have the repairs performed and sailed off into a hurricaine.

Watch coast guard Florida

[Anonymous Coward]

On the weather channel... I know on the dish on demand they have the special episode available about this exact incident and rescue. They also have a few higher ranking coast guard folks who mention they have sailed with the captain before being tall ship fans themselves and this guy grew up boating and was more than competent but with the hurricane changing directions he was also forced to but didn't make it quite in time.

They also interview a few of the crew, many who said this boat has been in worse storms with larger waves and higher winds without incident.

Re:Watch coast guard Florida

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to be pedantic, but it's Coast Guard not coast guard.

Coincidence

[paiute]

I was in Boothbay Harbor some weeks before, and the Bounty was in drydock having some work done. We gawked and took a few photos, as we had listened to the whole of the Aubrey/Maturin series and wanted to see something from about that period. The next thing I know I see her on TV, masts sticking out of the water.

One of the details which amused us was that the replica seemed not to have a "seat of ease" up forward.

Re:Coincidence

[Anonymous Coward]

Coincidence, that word does not mean what you think it does, its not coincidence that you set out to photograph a ship, and at some point later it sank

Re:Coincidence

[Anonymous Coward]

The two events roughly coincided.
Coincided.
Coincidence.

Watch the movie.

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps there should have been another mutiny???

Mod parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

Not a bad observation, certainly higher than 0.

Re:lot's ships just register is places with lax la

[Anonymous Coward]

lot's ships just register is places with lax laws

Uh, yeah, thanks for that Dr. Unintelligible.

Navy regulations are written in blood

[drnb]

Sawdust and wood chips littered the floor ... Thank God that the Navy has those knuckle dragging Deck Apes to ensure that Navy ships don't founder in the same way!

My uncle was a carpenter. I never saw sawdust or wood chips on his workshop floor unless he was in the middle of cutting or drilling.

Of course in his youth he was in the Navy, destroyers, WW2. When I asked what he did he said that they maintained the ship and its equipment, cleaned the ship and its equipment, and drilled for damage control and battle. He added that on occasion they were allowed to eat or sleep and that on very rare occasions they went into battle (Pacific, '42-'45, over a dozen battle stars).

He told me he learned to immediately take care of the smallest things when he was in the Navy. That the saying "Navy regs are written in blood" is true, that many regs are the way they are because someone died doing things differently. Given the unforgiving nature of the sea I'm surprised the professional civilian sailors (officers of the Bounty at least) did not understand that sloppiness can get you killed at sea.

True Camaraderie

[Tablizer]

It's interesting how almost all the crew stuck up for the captain in the questioning. They knew and mutually understood it was a rickety old ship and that they all joined the crew and all stayed on after the storm announcement for a seat-of-the-pants adventure, forming a tight camaraderie. "Shit happens" one member was quoted.

.How many gold filled ships sank due to hurricane

[Anonymous Coward]

I know lets take this type of ship right into one.

It was not called "HMS Bounty"

[dave420]

The ship wasn't part of the Royal Navy, so it was just called "Bounty".

Re:It was not called "HMS Bounty"

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe its official name was "HMS Bounty." ie, that it's full designation would have been S/V HMS Bounty. If the Royal Navy had bought her, she would have ended up designated HMS HMS Bounty.

On a sad footnote

[Alioth]

On a sad footnote, Claudine Christian was a direct descendent of Fletcher Christian, who lead the mutiny on the original Bounty.

For those in Peril on the Sea

[SonnyDog09]

Eternal Father, strong to save,
Whose arm hath bound the restless wave,
Who bidd'st the mighty ocean deep
Its own appointed limits keep;
Oh, hear us when we cry to Thee,
For those in peril on the sea!

Re:lot's ships just register is places with lax la

[Anonymous Coward]

lot's ships just register is places with lax laws

I was unaware that the person in the Holy Bible named Lot had a fleet of ships.

It's not I folks: It's Jeremiah Cornelius... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

HIS is why he's doing it & proof of it, here -> http://interviews.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3585927&cid=43295193 when others pointed out Jeremiah Cornelius forgot to submit one of the "first post spams" masquerading as myself as AC, & mistakenly submitted one of the impersonations of myself as his registered 'luser' name here on /. forums.

Pretty pitiful actually, but like every up to no good idiot does? He screwed up & submitted it under his registered 'luser' name here.

* Jeremiah Cornelius: DO YOURSELF, and the rest of us, A GIANT FAVOR MAN: Seek professional psychiatric help!

(Since Jeremiah Cornelius obviously can't get over the fact he made a spelling error on what it is HE ALLEGEDLY DID FOR A LIVING? That's not MY fault... it's HIS!)

APK

P.S.=> I seriously must have dusted JC (in his mind @ least) for his BAD spelling error & it "got his goat"...

I.E.-> Catching what he claimed to do as a job, for YEARS he left "PENETRATION" (correct) spelled as "PENTRATION" (incorrect) on his resume on LinkedIn & I pointed it out as he & his friends trolled me as usual (webmistressrachel, gmhowell, & crew (probably ALL JC no doubt using alterate emails or TOR to do it as a possible - I've caught "them & theirs" doing it before, ala Barbara, not Barbie = TomHudson (same person))).

So THAT is what has gotten his goat in a technical debate & his "geek angst" could only come up with *trying* to "impersonate me" in every news thread on /. for the month of March 2013 so far!

(Just to attempt to 'discredit me' as a spammer here obviously)

Doing so, by posting that "$10,000 challenge" &/or reposts of my old posts on hosts file value to end users into EVERY SINGLE NEWS ARTICLE POSTED on /. ...

It's all I can think of that *might* cause such a mentally troubled 'reaction' like the Jeremiah Cornelius is doing & there's NO QUESTION he's the one doing this spamming of nearly every posted article masquerading as myself...!

... apk

Darwin Award

[Anonymous Coward]

Winner Winner!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

The problem with old-timey adventure-seeking...

[GameboyRMH]

...is that sometimes you find it.

Till you have been in a huricane at sea

[mikefocke]

you have no appreciation of the power you are forced to grapple with. Not wanting to get caught in port and with all ships sortieing out to skirt the storm, I've stood 28 feet above the waterline regularly taking green water (not white foam) over my head with the bow of a 260 ft long ship burying. At that point, few are functioning, many sick. You sleep lashed into your bunk for only minutes at a time, walk only the interior passageways bouncing from bulkhead to bulkhead, spend long hours on watch and hope like heck you are alert enough to make the right decisions. And before leaving port every petty officer and then officer inspected the spaces to make sure there was nothing loose. Everything was designed to be bolted down to steel or aluminum and not go moving around. Even the TVs. And all critical systems were redundant.

Thank you engineering division for keeping those screws turning.