On the one hand, the Guards have already got enough power to screw over anyone they want, and they haven't done so.
Are you on the same island that I am? Ever hear of the McBreartys. Basically the Guards made the mistake of trying to frame a family who had the resources to fight back - God only knows how many families they use the same tactics with who don't have those resources.
There was another spectacular case of Garda corruption that ruined the life of an innocent man whose name escapes me at the moment. He was only found innocent by a chance remark made in court in a different case.
never claimed to be better than you... but frankly Europe has it all over the U.S. in the tyrant department
I'm confused - are you acknowledging present-day tyranny in the U.S. or not?
when you grow up enough to turn that critical eye upon yourself.
Maturity is surely dealing with the current situation that one finds oneself in, as opposed to whining about the past and mud-slinging. Many Europeans have come on this discussion and acknowledged that what is happening vis-a-vis visas is wrong. Many Americans have too. And at least one of those Americans has been gracious enough to acknowledged that it started on that side of the pond - though even that, while welcome, doesn't actually add much in terms of providing a solution, unfortunately.
the United States, its people, and its political system took a big hit from our involvement (in WW2)
Agreed - but not as much of a hit as you would have taken if you didn't get involved - which you didn't do until Japan left you with no choice! This is why looking towards the past and whining and mud-slinging is not at all useful - let's keep focussed on the present.
much as you dislike the United States' current policies, there's much worse than us loose in the world.
In terms of intent, agreed. In terms of how that intent translates into the potential for utter destruction and chaos, I struggle to think of a bigger problem than the White House (al Qaeda are the only contenders that I can think of). There is an enormous difference between a tyrannical regime in the dark caves of Pakistan and a tyrannical regime in the White House - the latter is to be feared much, much more.
Many moons ago, I was involved in a project that required very accurate time (1 microsecond or better). We purchased a GPS with a 1-pulse-per-second output for this. The problem I had was that whereas I had these wonderfully sharp accurate pulses on each second, I wasn't quite sure WHICH second they were referring to!
The GPS manual wasn't that great, but I implemented what I thought was the correct solution. I then checked it against NTP time and - bingo - agreement! I then checked it against the phone company's clock and - hmmm - I was one second fast. So I checked it against a radio time signal and, once again, agreement.
So I called the phone company. Unfortunately, the person who maintained the clock was out, so I had to talk to his secretary. She was astonished - "why do you care that the clock is one second out!?". So I explained to her that one second was a big deal when I was trying to be accurate to a millionth of a second. After much scratching of heads, she finally said to me "Oh! Do you want me to change the time?!". The astonishment was now mine.
As one of my colleagues said - "you should have said yes - I'm late with my project!".
On a side note - the radio time source I used was Radio Moscow (I was working in the west of Ireland at the time, and that was the strongest time signal I could receive with the radio set I had). I noticed that the time from Radio Moscow was 11 milliseconds "late". Of course the reason was because I was about 3,300km from Moscow - I had just inadvertently measured the speed of light!
All these inaccuracies are the direct result of primitive imperial measurements.
Actually, no they are not. They are due to trying to squeeze something irregular (the length of a solar day) into something regular (atomic time).
The "Metric Time" link that you gave defines the unit of time as the mean solar day. Unfortunately, it's only possible to find out what the duration of the mean solar day is after the event, as the mean solar day is affected by the Earth's irregular rotation. So Metric Time, as it has been defined by that link, is an untenable timescale for practical purposes.
Software isnt a process, it is a human invention: a TOOL that helps ppl do things. So if you patent a tool, you can patent a piece of software.
It's the computer that's the tool. Software is the means by which you use the tool. You can patent an axe, but you cannot patent an axe swing, nor the response of the tree to the axe swing.
physical inventions can be broken down into abstract physical phenonema. An engine uses explosions, inertia, and friction. None of these are patentable
I think you are talking about two different things. Physical processes cannot be patented - they are facts of nature. As you say, you cannot patent an explosion, inertia or friction. However, physical objects can be patented - a piston can be patented, but it's up-and-down motion, or the explosions that make it go up-and-down, are not patentable.
The processes themselves are not patentable, but the means to generate the processes are. This is a central issue in software patenting - is software a process, or a means to generating a process? Is software a fact of nature, or an invention. I would argue that its a fact of nature.
So there we are. Finally, equality of the sexes; we all get to have bad self-image thrust upon us!
Yes, but just because it is thrust upon us, it doesn't mean that we have to take it on board! Of course, too many people DO take it on board, and that is tragic. These images that are being thrust upon us are someone else's fantasy, and that is all they are. So what are we to do about the tradegy - ban fantasy?
The key question is - why do people take this on board, as clearly not everyone does. Is it, perhaps, because it is easier for me to work towards being Arnie than it is for me to work towards being me? If so, then I need to learn that it is better (and, actually, easier) for me to work towards being me than anyone else on the planet, and that there is great value in that.
Comparing a synthesised radio telescope (as was done here) with the Hubble is like comparing apples and oranges. It is MUCH harder to generate these kind of high-resolution pictures in visible as it is in radio.
For instance, if I were to use the VLBI technique in optical wavelengths, and if I had conditions where atmospheric turbulence wasn't affecting the image (as happens with radio), I would produce 20 milli arcsecond resolution with telescopes less than 10 metres apart, as opposed to telescopes on different continents!
There's only 930 people in the town. Now their famous.
Yes - they are famous for being duped. It remains to be seen, but they may yet become famous for being people that the nation laughs at. Fame isn't always a good thing. Fame isn't for everyone. Fame usually doesn't live up to the expectations of those that want it.
Surely if you were to wear some conducting material under your clothes, it would defeat this thing, by shorting out whatever current was directed at you!
Definitely time to start investing in tin foil hat companies.
A story - I was living in a seaside resort town, it was late on a Friday night, everyone else was out getting drunk and enjoying themselves, and I was carrying two heavy bags of groceries back to the flat (bad timing).
A group of youths decided to hassle me - call me names and brush up against me. I ran after one of them, bags and all. Don't ask me what prompted me to do that, but it worked! He ran from me, ran between two parked cars, and nearly got hit by oncoming traffic. I resumed my journey to the flat.
One of the youths still didn't "get it". He continued to hassle me. So I just dropped my bags, pivoted on one leg, faced him, and stamped my other leg on the pavement. He ran.
It's about confidence. It's about never ever staring at the ground as you walk. If you've always stared at the ground, just try looking around the next time that you are out. Don't look at anyone if that's too much for you. You'll pretty quickly learn and gain confidence.
I'm not so sure of your assessment that this film is a politically-motivated "show Bush up in a bad light" exercise. Hollywood is always producing movies depiciting "what-if" situations that the Government is ill-prepared for. I mean, Independence Day came out when Clinton was in power, and what did he do to protect us from the aliens???
(One of) their slang names is "An Garda Sicini" (pronounced with a "h" after the "s", and the two latter "i"'s are long), which means "Guardians of the Chickens".
According to the UK NIC, adversting.co.uk (the people who host a.exe) are at 13 The Glen, Southall, UB2 5RS.
If you are in the area, and have sufficient curiosity, you can use this map to guide you to the location mentioned above.
DISCLAIMER: it is possible that the UK NIC has the wrong information. It is possible that adversting.co.uk have nothing to do with a.exe (their web server may have been compromised).
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
... though the still terribly few number of women in the political arena suggests we still have a long way to go there.
The reason why most of our politicians are male is because most of our voters vote for men. And, most of our voters are female. Which suggests that the primary reason (there are others...) why most of our politicians are male is because that is the way that most women want it to be.
Why would women want it that way? Well, women realise that men are socialised to look out for the welfare of women. Women are not socialised to look out for the welfare of men or other women - women are socialised to look out for the welfare of children. And children cannot vote...
Now, can we put the question of availability of fuel to bed?
As I said, I believe this is all a PR exercise, and an exercise in muscle-flexing by powerful unelected officials. Let's look at their decision in detail. As a result of their decision
The taxpayers of their countries lost revenue (through lost profits on the sale of fuel)
Instead of one person's life being risked in the necessary task of removing the plane, extra risk was (probably) placed on the lives of the many people it is going to take to bring a ship down there, load the plane onto it, and bring it back.
That ship is going to have an enviornmental impact on Antarctica that the treaty says should be avoided - the impact of a plane taking off would be minimal.
Whereas these officials have made the point that they are not gas stations, they have (very stupidly, IMNSHO) not made the point that they are not in the hotel business (by giving this guy accommodation when he had his own). They have shown that their policies are "flexible", and so you can be sure that someone is going to flex them in future.
On the "plus" side, they have
Discouraged tourism
Discouraged exploration
Discouraged adventuring
Consolidated their position as the de-facto rulers of Antarctica
Have they also discouraged recklessness? I don't think so - charging this guy way over the norm (even the Antarctic norm) for fuel would have been an effective discouragement. Instead of doing that, they gave him accommodation!
A century ago, people risked their lives to explore Antarctica. Now, it seems, people are expected to risk their lives to prevent it's exploration.
In all the reports of this situation, the base commanders have never said that they could not spare the fuel. They have huge reserves. There is no chance of their scientists freezing. 400 litres is a drop in the ocean for them - there are a number of flights per day that travel between Christchurch, McMurdo, the South Pole and various field locations, and they have fuel to support all that activity.
The 400 liters would need to be replaced quickly, so that it was on hand if the base had a life threatening emergency that required the fuel.
Funny - in all the reports about this situation, I've never heard the base commanders say that they are not selling the guy the fuel because they cannot spare it. The only reason that they are giving is that they "are not a gas station".
Do you know something that they do not?
... it would either displace 650 lbs of previously planned equipment or come out of the safety margin... shipping the plane out can wait until the yearly resupply by boat.
But it's still not better to displace 650lbs of previously-planned equipment as opposed to whatever number of lbs required to ship out the plane. And remember, we are also quite possibly talking about having to ship in the crane required to put the plane on the ship! It's not clear that such a crane exists in McMurdo or Scott base, and if they did, what are the chances that the base commanders are going to give the loan of it to someone that they had to stretch to give food and shelter to?
As for the heating situation, an airplane is not like a car - a car is designed to keep people safe at 70mph and 0m altitude, an airplane keeps people safe at much higher speeds and altitudes, where the air is naturally colder, and this guy is being kept in the shed in which they store the fuel - I very much doubt that they keep that building heated.
Whereas it's not necessary to remove his plane quickly from Antarctica, it is necessary to remove it - the Antarctic treaty mandates it.
I certainly do not believe that it's an easy thing to bring resources to Antarctica, which is why it is a damn good idea to use the resources that are there as efficiently as possible.
Neither is it easy to replace 400 litres of fuel. But if you have 400 litres of fuel, it is easy to give it to someone in need.
As for the other idiots that might follow this guy, chances are that they will not survive. This guy was not quite an idiot - he was an experienced adventurer who made a bad (arguably a very bad) judgement call when he found himself facing stronger headwinds than expected. It could happen to the best of us. It happened to him. I doubt if it will happen to him again, and I doubt if his misadventure would encourage others.
It's not like he is demanding free fuel - he made a mistake, he has resources (ie money) to rectify the matter, and he wants to use that resource. And he is well aware that fuel in Antarctica costs far more than it costs at Sydney Airport.
It is indeed true that shipping into and out of Antarctica is a risky business. But you tell me - which is more risky? Shipping in an extra 400 litres of fuel, or shipping out an airplane? It is the base commanders decision that is putting more lives at risk.
I still don't understand why the base commanders are giving him shelter - if they didn't give him shelter then I would be more supportive of them, as I would at least see consistency in their actions. I can understand them giving him food - they are probably mandated to do so by some international law or other - but I cannot understand them giving him shelter when he has his own and when they are "not running a hotel business in Antarctica". If the only way his plane is going to get off Antarctica is by boat, then there is no reason for him not to use the last of his fuel keeping himself warm, thereby preventing the need for too many extra calories - it's a win-win situation for the base commanders. So why don't they do it? I believe it's solely because of the PR backlash that it would generate.
So let's call it like it is - this is all a PR thing. It has nothing to do with morals, friendship, lack of fuel, presence of fuel, emergencies, food, shipping or any of those other things. It has to do with the base commanders saying "this is our turf, we make the rules, and you would better not come within a thousand miles of us unless you have backup plan on top of backup plan on top of backup plan, unless you can without a shadow of a doubt handle anything that Antarctica can throw at you (which is, of course, impossible), because we will do everything we can (including refusing your money) not to help you while still maintaining an air of respectibility about ourselves."
I would hardly call a plane which has been around the world three times a "toy plane". Obviously, you disagree - how good of a plane does it need to be before you would see it otherwise?
I'm confused - you say that if he had checked, he would have found that the bases do not have fuel to spare, yet you also say that they have contingency for emergencies? So, do they have the fuel to spare or not? Answer - yes they do! They have the fuel, they are just refusing to sell him any. Which is their perfect right to do - but it sets a very dangerous precedent in a very dangerous environment. Not only do the Americans not have to sell fuel to this guy, they don't even have to sell any to the New Zealanders who share Ross Island with them should they get into trouble. And vice-versa.
Was this guy stupid to do what he did? Perhaps. Does this mean that he should not be helped?
Have you never done anything foolish? If you did, were you helped? Should you have been???
Of course, this guy is, indeed, being helped. The bases are not gas stations, but it appears that they are happy enough to provide food and shelter to "foolhardy" travellers. Whatever about food, why are they compromising their principles by giving this guy shelter - he has an airplane that he can shelter from the elements in!
But they are not giving him the "help" he is looking for (in the form of a business transaction). Should they? Both him and the plane need to be removed from Antarctica, and there are two ways of doing it. The base commanders are making it as hard as possible, and all to try and make a silly "point".
For the base commanders to say that they fear that they will become Antarctic search-and-rescue bases is a bit silly, IMNSHO. I, for one, am certainly not going to get into a small airplane and fly to Antarctica "safe" in the knowledge that there are a dozen or so bases on a continent the size of the U.S. and Mexico combined that I can land at!!!
I had no idea that that was mandated just because I'm an American.
Not because you are an American, but because you are a human being. Or am I making incorrect assumptions here?
They need the gas for their own research use and for emergency use.
And what constitutes an emergency? Someone who runs out of fuel due to adverse weather conditions, perhaps? Or does that person have to be an American scientist (as opposed to just an Australian adventurer) before it becomes an emergency?
If the situation was reversed - if an American was caught out in Antarctica due to a combination of bad weather and maybe a bit of foolhardiness, would you accept that person being refused certain kinds of help by Australian and New Zealand scientists?
If they sold him some, they are at risk for either their research or their safety in case weather conditions prevent the next supply flight from coming in.
So you are saying that people being caught on the hop by the weather conditions in Antarctica is possible occurrance, even for American scientists!? If that were to happen, would you rather or rather not be able to count on some sort of reasonable support from your friends?
Slashdot Mirror
On the one hand, the Guards have already got enough power to screw over anyone they want, and they haven't done so.
Are you on the same island that I am? Ever hear of the McBreartys. Basically the Guards made the mistake of trying to frame a family who had the resources to fight back - God only knows how many families they use the same tactics with who don't have those resources. There was another spectacular case of Garda corruption that ruined the life of an innocent man whose name escapes me at the moment. He was only found innocent by a chance remark made in court in a different case.
Do we ...
(Achoo!)
*sniff*
... have any immunity?
never claimed to be better than you ... but frankly Europe has it all over the U.S. in the tyrant department
I'm confused - are you acknowledging present-day tyranny in the U.S. or not?
when you grow up enough to turn that critical eye upon yourself.
Maturity is surely dealing with the current situation that one finds oneself in, as opposed to whining about the past and mud-slinging. Many Europeans have come on this discussion and acknowledged that what is happening vis-a-vis visas is wrong. Many Americans have too. And at least one of those Americans has been gracious enough to acknowledged that it started on that side of the pond - though even that, while welcome, doesn't actually add much in terms of providing a solution, unfortunately.
the United States, its people, and its political system took a big hit from our involvement (in WW2)
Agreed - but not as much of a hit as you would have taken if you didn't get involved - which you didn't do until Japan left you with no choice! This is why looking towards the past and whining and mud-slinging is not at all useful - let's keep focussed on the present.
much as you dislike the United States' current policies, there's much worse than us loose in the world.
In terms of intent, agreed. In terms of how that intent translates into the potential for utter destruction and chaos, I struggle to think of a bigger problem than the White House (al Qaeda are the only contenders that I can think of). There is an enormous difference between a tyrannical regime in the dark caves of Pakistan and a tyrannical regime in the White House - the latter is to be feared much, much more.
Many moons ago, I was involved in a project that required very accurate time (1 microsecond or better). We purchased a GPS with a 1-pulse-per-second output for this. The problem I had was that whereas I had these wonderfully sharp accurate pulses on each second, I wasn't quite sure WHICH second they were referring to!
The GPS manual wasn't that great, but I implemented what I thought was the correct solution. I then checked it against NTP time and - bingo - agreement! I then checked it against the phone company's clock and - hmmm - I was one second fast. So I checked it against a radio time signal and, once again, agreement.
So I called the phone company. Unfortunately, the person who maintained the clock was out, so I had to talk to his secretary. She was astonished - "why do you care that the clock is one second out!?". So I explained to her that one second was a big deal when I was trying to be accurate to a millionth of a second. After much scratching of heads, she finally said to me "Oh! Do you want me to change the time?!". The astonishment was now mine.
As one of my colleagues said - "you should have said yes - I'm late with my project!".
On a side note - the radio time source I used was Radio Moscow (I was working in the west of Ireland at the time, and that was the strongest time signal I could receive with the radio set I had). I noticed that the time from Radio Moscow was 11 milliseconds "late". Of course the reason was because I was about 3,300km from Moscow - I had just inadvertently measured the speed of light!
All these inaccuracies are the direct result of primitive imperial measurements.
Actually, no they are not. They are due to trying to squeeze something irregular (the length of a solar day) into something regular (atomic time).
The "Metric Time" link that you gave defines the unit of time as the mean solar day. Unfortunately, it's only possible to find out what the duration of the mean solar day is after the event, as the mean solar day is affected by the Earth's irregular rotation. So Metric Time, as it has been defined by that link, is an untenable timescale for practical purposes.
but one does wish [Europe] were better friends in times of need
If the U.S. had listened to its friends in Europe in the first place, then the U.S. wouldn't be have quite the same level of need right now.
Software isnt a process, it is a human invention: a TOOL that helps ppl do things. So if you patent a tool, you can patent a piece of software.
It's the computer that's the tool. Software is the means by which you use the tool. You can patent an axe, but you cannot patent an axe swing, nor the response of the tree to the axe swing.
physical inventions can be broken down into abstract physical phenonema. An engine uses explosions, inertia, and friction. None of these are patentable
I think you are talking about two different things. Physical processes cannot be patented - they are facts of nature. As you say, you cannot patent an explosion, inertia or friction. However, physical objects can be patented - a piston can be patented, but it's up-and-down motion, or the explosions that make it go up-and-down, are not patentable.
The processes themselves are not patentable, but the means to generate the processes are. This is a central issue in software patenting - is software a process, or a means to generating a process? Is software a fact of nature, or an invention. I would argue that its a fact of nature.
So there we are. Finally, equality of the sexes; we all get to have bad self-image thrust upon us!
Yes, but just because it is thrust upon us, it doesn't mean that we have to take it on board! Of course, too many people DO take it on board, and that is tragic. These images that are being thrust upon us are someone else's fantasy, and that is all they are. So what are we to do about the tradegy - ban fantasy?
The key question is - why do people take this on board, as clearly not everyone does. Is it, perhaps, because it is easier for me to work towards being Arnie than it is for me to work towards being me? If so, then I need to learn that it is better (and, actually, easier) for me to work towards being me than anyone else on the planet, and that there is great value in that.
"We don't have contacts in our address book for anybody in that part of the world."
What about ... the American Embassy in the affected countries?!?!
Comparing a synthesised radio telescope (as was done here) with the Hubble is like comparing apples and oranges. It is MUCH harder to generate these kind of high-resolution pictures in visible as it is in radio.
For instance, if I were to use the VLBI technique in optical wavelengths, and if I had conditions where atmospheric turbulence wasn't affecting the image (as happens with radio), I would produce 20 milli arcsecond resolution with telescopes less than 10 metres apart, as opposed to telescopes on different continents!
There's only 930 people in the town. Now their famous.
Yes - they are famous for being duped. It remains to be seen, but they may yet become famous for being people that the nation laughs at. Fame isn't always a good thing. Fame isn't for everyone. Fame usually doesn't live up to the expectations of those that want it.
And why why why does the media never tell us the entire story?
It's too complicated. Don't worry - relax - we'll put the Simpsons back on shortly.
Surely if you were to wear some conducting material under your clothes, it would defeat this thing, by shorting out whatever current was directed at you!
Definitely time to start investing in tin foil hat companies.
A story - I was living in a seaside resort town, it was late on a Friday night, everyone else was out getting drunk and enjoying themselves, and I was carrying two heavy bags of groceries back to the flat (bad timing).
A group of youths decided to hassle me - call me names and brush up against me. I ran after one of them, bags and all. Don't ask me what prompted me to do that, but it worked! He ran from me, ran between two parked cars, and nearly got hit by oncoming traffic. I resumed my journey to the flat.
One of the youths still didn't "get it". He continued to hassle me. So I just dropped my bags, pivoted on one leg, faced him, and stamped my other leg on the pavement. He ran.
It's about confidence. It's about never ever staring at the ground as you walk. If you've always stared at the ground, just try looking around the next time that you are out. Don't look at anyone if that's too much for you. You'll pretty quickly learn and gain confidence.
I'm not so sure of your assessment that this film is a politically-motivated "show Bush up in a bad light" exercise. Hollywood is always producing movies depiciting "what-if" situations that the Government is ill-prepared for. I mean, Independence Day came out when Clinton was in power, and what did he do to protect us from the aliens???
(One of) their slang names is "An Garda Sicini" (pronounced with a "h" after the "s", and the two latter "i"'s are long), which means "Guardians of the Chickens".
If you are in the area, and have sufficient curiosity, you can use this map to guide you to the location mentioned above.
DISCLAIMER: it is possible that the UK NIC has the wrong information. It is possible that adversting.co.uk have nothing to do with a.exe (their web server may have been compromised).
The reason why most of our politicians are male is because most of our voters vote for men. And, most of our voters are female. Which suggests that the primary reason (there are others...) why most of our politicians are male is because that is the way that most women want it to be.
Why would women want it that way? Well, women realise that men are socialised to look out for the welfare of women. Women are not socialised to look out for the welfare of men or other women - women are socialised to look out for the welfare of children. And children cannot vote...
McMurdo fuel reserve tanks.
Now, can we put the question of availability of fuel to bed?
As I said, I believe this is all a PR exercise, and an exercise in muscle-flexing by powerful unelected officials. Let's look at their decision in detail. As a result of their decision
On the "plus" side, they have
Have they also discouraged recklessness? I don't think so - charging this guy way over the norm (even the Antarctic norm) for fuel would have been an effective discouragement. Instead of doing that, they gave him accommodation!
A century ago, people risked their lives to explore Antarctica. Now, it seems, people are expected to risk their lives to prevent it's exploration.
In all the reports of this situation, the base commanders have never said that they could not spare the fuel. They have huge reserves. There is no chance of their scientists freezing. 400 litres is a drop in the ocean for them - there are a number of flights per day that travel between Christchurch, McMurdo, the South Pole and various field locations, and they have fuel to support all that activity.
The 400 liters would need to be replaced quickly, so that it was on hand if the base had a life threatening emergency that required the fuel.
Funny - in all the reports about this situation, I've never heard the base commanders say that they are not selling the guy the fuel because they cannot spare it. The only reason that they are giving is that they "are not a gas station".
Do you know something that they do not?
But it's still not better to displace 650lbs of previously-planned equipment as opposed to whatever number of lbs required to ship out the plane. And remember, we are also quite possibly talking about having to ship in the crane required to put the plane on the ship! It's not clear that such a crane exists in McMurdo or Scott base, and if they did, what are the chances that the base commanders are going to give the loan of it to someone that they had to stretch to give food and shelter to?
As for the heating situation, an airplane is not like a car - a car is designed to keep people safe at 70mph and 0m altitude, an airplane keeps people safe at much higher speeds and altitudes, where the air is naturally colder, and this guy is being kept in the shed in which they store the fuel - I very much doubt that they keep that building heated.
Whereas it's not necessary to remove his plane quickly from Antarctica, it is necessary to remove it - the Antarctic treaty mandates it.
I certainly do not believe that it's an easy thing to bring resources to Antarctica, which is why it is a damn good idea to use the resources that are there as efficiently as possible.
Neither is it easy to replace 400 litres of fuel. But if you have 400 litres of fuel, it is easy to give it to someone in need.
As for the other idiots that might follow this guy, chances are that they will not survive. This guy was not quite an idiot - he was an experienced adventurer who made a bad (arguably a very bad) judgement call when he found himself facing stronger headwinds than expected. It could happen to the best of us. It happened to him. I doubt if it will happen to him again, and I doubt if his misadventure would encourage others.
It's not like he is demanding free fuel - he made a mistake, he has resources (ie money) to rectify the matter, and he wants to use that resource. And he is well aware that fuel in Antarctica costs far more than it costs at Sydney Airport.
It is indeed true that shipping into and out of Antarctica is a risky business. But you tell me - which is more risky? Shipping in an extra 400 litres of fuel, or shipping out an airplane? It is the base commanders decision that is putting more lives at risk.
I still don't understand why the base commanders are giving him shelter - if they didn't give him shelter then I would be more supportive of them, as I would at least see consistency in their actions. I can understand them giving him food - they are probably mandated to do so by some international law or other - but I cannot understand them giving him shelter when he has his own and when they are "not running a hotel business in Antarctica". If the only way his plane is going to get off Antarctica is by boat, then there is no reason for him not to use the last of his fuel keeping himself warm, thereby preventing the need for too many extra calories - it's a win-win situation for the base commanders. So why don't they do it? I believe it's solely because of the PR backlash that it would generate.
So let's call it like it is - this is all a PR thing. It has nothing to do with morals, friendship, lack of fuel, presence of fuel, emergencies, food, shipping or any of those other things. It has to do with the base commanders saying "this is our turf, we make the rules, and you would better not come within a thousand miles of us unless you have backup plan on top of backup plan on top of backup plan, unless you can without a shadow of a doubt handle anything that Antarctica can throw at you (which is, of course, impossible), because we will do everything we can (including refusing your money) not to help you while still maintaining an air of respectibility about ourselves."
That, IMNSHO, is wrong.
I would hardly call a plane which has been around the world three times a "toy plane". Obviously, you disagree - how good of a plane does it need to be before you would see it otherwise?
I'm confused - you say that if he had checked, he would have found that the bases do not have fuel to spare, yet you also say that they have contingency for emergencies? So, do they have the fuel to spare or not? Answer - yes they do! They have the fuel, they are just refusing to sell him any. Which is their perfect right to do - but it sets a very dangerous precedent in a very dangerous environment. Not only do the Americans not have to sell fuel to this guy, they don't even have to sell any to the New Zealanders who share Ross Island with them should they get into trouble. And vice-versa.
Was this guy stupid to do what he did? Perhaps. Does this mean that he should not be helped?
Have you never done anything foolish? If you did, were you helped? Should you have been???
Of course, this guy is, indeed, being helped. The bases are not gas stations, but it appears that they are happy enough to provide food and shelter to "foolhardy" travellers. Whatever about food, why are they compromising their principles by giving this guy shelter - he has an airplane that he can shelter from the elements in!
But they are not giving him the "help" he is looking for (in the form of a business transaction). Should they? Both him and the plane need to be removed from Antarctica, and there are two ways of doing it. The base commanders are making it as hard as possible, and all to try and make a silly "point".
For the base commanders to say that they fear that they will become Antarctic search-and-rescue bases is a bit silly, IMNSHO. I, for one, am certainly not going to get into a small airplane and fly to Antarctica "safe" in the knowledge that there are a dozen or so bases on a continent the size of the U.S. and Mexico combined that I can land at!!!
I had no idea that that was mandated just because I'm an American.
Not because you are an American, but because you are a human being. Or am I making incorrect assumptions here?
They need the gas for their own research use and for emergency use.
And what constitutes an emergency? Someone who runs out of fuel due to adverse weather conditions, perhaps? Or does that person have to be an American scientist (as opposed to just an Australian adventurer) before it becomes an emergency?
If the situation was reversed - if an American was caught out in Antarctica due to a combination of bad weather and maybe a bit of foolhardiness, would you accept that person being refused certain kinds of help by Australian and New Zealand scientists?
If they sold him some, they are at risk for either their research or their safety in case weather conditions prevent the next supply flight from coming in.
So you are saying that people being caught on the hop by the weather conditions in Antarctica is possible occurrance, even for American scientists!? If that were to happen, would you rather or rather not be able to count on some sort of reasonable support from your friends?