It doesn't work like that. Allstate or Prudential (et. al.) don't give a shit about what happens to Lloyds of London. And if they do, just switch to a different insurance carrier.
Yes, they could. But they wouldn't get any business. Before I entrust you with 200 shipping containers of my product, you're going to get an anal probe. And your insurance company too.
I don't enter into this sort of arrangement without evaluating all the risks.
I didn't mention overloading, did I? I specifically stipulated a cargo weight less than the displacement of the ship. In the best case, this arrangement would float just fine.
However, if you don't get the weight distribution right, a safe load becomes unsafe. And, as I said, if the bow and stern both crest on waves, with an improperly loaded ship, the middle could collapse.
Now, I will concede that I didn't look at the pictures before posting. Now that I have, I feel vindicated. Look at those pictures and tell me that the bottom of the ship didn't fail. It's still attached at the top of the hull (in the early pics). That much is clear.
Here's a thought experiment for you: Take a humongous cargo ship of some displacement. Now, gather enough shipping containers to achieve a weight close to, but less than that displacement. Now, put one in the center of the ship. Then, stack the rest on directly on top of that. If they don't fall directly through the bottom of the ship, they will break the ship in half. Which is what happened here.
Seeing as how you are both an AC, and seriously deluded, I respectfully decline your invitation to engage you on an intellectual basis due to your lack of standing.
Why is this a problem for you? If tax dollars are involved, perhaps I might have an issue.
You quote a sentence beginning with 'Theirs'. That would imply that they didn't write that sentence. Who would actually think they're claiming some sort of equivalence to Tesla Motors?
We made the decision to support 'Afghans' against 'Soviets'. We were successful in this. What we failed to do was to think beyond that. Thinking that would have been enough. But even that would've limited the effect to Afghanistan's internal problems - which we thought would be their own. And in fact, that pretty much played out. It took Saddam Hussein to set into motion the chain of events that would create al Queda. We didn't see that coming (and nor did anyone else)
We're not omniscient or omnipotent. We do make mistakes. But again, these things aren't so simple. Take Syria for example. A secular dictator allied with Iran's non-secular government vs. a hodge podge of democratic secularists and authoritarian Islamists. Where do we fall? A similar, but not identical situation is developing in Egypt.
Take one side, or the other. I don't care. The discussion can be fruitful. But when people approach the discussion with a preconceived narrative formulated through cherry-picked events, it doesn't really add to the discussion. It just shuts much of it off.
Interesting questions, but not really on point. This is a demonstration of the current state of the art as they see it. Perhaps an advertisement for attracting further funding. They aren't really targeting requirements developed by you or me. So I feel content to just watch and note the accomplishment.
Slashdot Mirror
MOD PARENT UP
Uh, ok.
And thousands of containers on the seabed...
Liable for damages.
And tens of people out of work...
Why?, they don't cost much. And are necessary to further operation of the company.
But not the decisionmakers
Without whom no damages can be paid.
And several lives put at risk...
We're trying to determine who did that.
No. I'm saying that the 'load line', 'water line', 'plimsoll line' etc. have almost nothing to do with safely loading a ship.
A C-130 cargo plane has a rated capacity of X kg. But you can't put it all in the tail.
Can you now explain to me how, in this case, the 'load line' did its job?
Thanks
It doesn't work like that. Allstate or Prudential (et. al.) don't give a shit about what happens to Lloyds of London. And if they do, just switch to a different insurance carrier.
Yes, they could. But they wouldn't get any business. Before I entrust you with 200 shipping containers of my product, you're going to get an anal probe. And your insurance company too.
I don't enter into this sort of arrangement without evaluating all the risks.
I didn't mention overloading, did I? I specifically stipulated a cargo weight less than the displacement of the ship. In the best case, this arrangement would float just fine.
However, if you don't get the weight distribution right, a safe load becomes unsafe. And, as I said, if the bow and stern both crest on waves, with an improperly loaded ship, the middle could collapse.
Now, I will concede that I didn't look at the pictures before posting. Now that I have, I feel vindicated. Look at those pictures and tell me that the bottom of the ship didn't fail. It's still attached at the top of the hull (in the early pics). That much is clear.
That line doesn't mean shit when the bow and stern are crested across two wave peaks.
But the boat was floating at the time, wasn't it? Try that with a shipping container.
No, wait,... Don't try that with a shipping container. I mean it.
Here's a thought experiment for you: Take a humongous cargo ship of some displacement. Now, gather enough shipping containers to achieve a weight close to, but less than that displacement. Now, put one in the center of the ship. Then, stack the rest on directly on top of that. If they don't fall directly through the bottom of the ship, they will break the ship in half. Which is what happened here.
I think you could stand to learn a lot more about insurance.
It's not a theory, is it? That's one hell of an implicit fine - loss of mega-dollar a ship and a mega-dollar cargo.
Well, if your software relies on incorrect parameters (as stated in the summary), you wouldn't want to go fixing that.
You can reproduce the issue by getting their keystroke history. File an FOIA request with the NSA.
The problem here is moron CIO's and the people who prey on them.
Seeing as how you are both an AC, and seriously deluded, I respectfully decline your invitation to engage you on an intellectual basis due to your lack of standing.
Ok, no G.I. Joe with Kung-Fu Grip for you. Just a big plate of pessimism.
But imagine if we could develop a solar powered aircraft that could fly though the night...
(tap, tap)
Huh?
Oh, that's what this story is about?
Well then, nevermind.
Did the sailplane hop across the continental U.S.? If not, it appears that this thing is better.
Why is this a problem for you? If tax dollars are involved, perhaps I might have an issue.
You quote a sentence beginning with 'Theirs'. That would imply that they didn't write that sentence. Who would actually think they're claiming some sort of equivalence to Tesla Motors?
We made the decision to support 'Afghans' against 'Soviets'. We were successful in this. What we failed to do was to think beyond that. Thinking that would have been enough. But even that would've limited the effect to Afghanistan's internal problems - which we thought would be their own. And in fact, that pretty much played out. It took Saddam Hussein to set into motion the chain of events that would create al Queda. We didn't see that coming (and nor did anyone else)
We're not omniscient or omnipotent. We do make mistakes. But again, these things aren't so simple. Take Syria for example. A secular dictator allied with Iran's non-secular government vs. a hodge podge of democratic secularists and authoritarian Islamists. Where do we fall? A similar, but not identical situation is developing in Egypt.
Take one side, or the other. I don't care. The discussion can be fruitful. But when people approach the discussion with a preconceived narrative formulated through cherry-picked events, it doesn't really add to the discussion. It just shuts much of it off.
we are no where NEAR ready to make solar powered planes yet.
Psst... this is a story about a solar powered plane successfully making it's way across the continental U.S.
No, I don't want to buy one. But it is interesting.
But, assuming that the aircraft is capable of flying from east to west for any distance, isn't this just a question of how long it would take?
I don't know, but it is surprisingly big. Perhaps it's about hanger space more than runways.
Interesting questions, but not really on point. This is a demonstration of the current state of the art as they see it. Perhaps an advertisement for attracting further funding. They aren't really targeting requirements developed by you or me. So I feel content to just watch and note the accomplishment.