Weapons and training are "VERY expensive?" How about the cost of stolen cargo, is that cheap? The ransom paid for kidnapped crewmembers, how cheap is that?
Yes, weapons and training and insurance are significantly more expensive than the small amount of lost cargo and ransoms paid. You can be quite sure this calculation has been performed many times over. Should piracy become a much bigger problem than it currently is I'm sure the calculation will get revisited.
This whole "anti-gun" argument seems to revolve around the fact that it's hard to dock a merchant ship in international ports if it's armed. It's a bullshit argument.
If you think that you haven't been listening. That is merely one reason why its a bad idea. Arming merchant ships is a bad idea because it is economically unfeasible, legally difficult, questionably effective and morally questionable. You are proposing a very expensive and problematic solution to what amounts to petty crime. There are no more than a few hundred incidents of piracy WORLDWIDE each year. It's just not that big a problem.
Either change the laws (and any nation that doesn't want to cooperate can find out how nice not having any commerce is),
OK smart guy, go and get the laws changed. Have fun doing that in pretty much each and EVERY country around the world including the United States. Clearly you think this is easy so show us how it's done.
Put the anti-pirate people on a smaller craft that does not enter sovereign waters. Easy solution. Contractors can be hired to escort your ships through danger zones armed to the fucking teeth. Problem solved.
Great. Even if that were a complete solution (and it isn't) you still have the problem of how you are going to pay for it. Those contractors you mention are already available but most merchant ships don't use them. Why? Because they are VERY expensive and piracy just isn't really that big a problem. Furthermore there are plenty of high piracy areas (bits of the Strait of Malacca for instance) that are IN territorial waters. Explain to me how your mercenaries are going to protect a ship without violating sovereign law in that case. I'm pretty sure you can't.
This would only really be a probelm with permanent mounts, such as the aforementioned deck guns, while the heavy machine guns could easily be offloaded...
Easily? You're going to offload heavy weaponry while in international waters? Yes you can do it but easy isn't the word I'd use. Never mind that many incidents of piracy do not occur in international waters.
This way, a crew of military contractors could be transferred from ship to ship, along with their armament, to escort them through the dangerous area without ever nearing an unfriendly port themselves.
They already do this. Guess what? There still are problems. In places like the Strait of Malacca there are narrow areas where there are effectively no international waters. 50,000 vessels a year go through. Those contractors are subject to the local laws if they chase a pirate.
There are ways to work out the logistics if the laws cannot be changed.
Perhaps but not the economics. Armed escorts are very, very expensive. Arming ships is very very expensive. Shipping companies are frequently unprofitable and might not be able to pass on the costs to their customers. Until piracy becomes a MUCH bigger problem, the economics of the problem will be the strongest argument against arming merchant ships.
You have a very simplistic view of this problem. Seriously, if it was simply as easy as arming a merchant ship, don't you think they would have done it already?
Armament in those days usually consisted of at least one 5 inch or so surplus deck gun...
Liberty ships (by far the most common) were apparently armed with a single aft mounted 4 inch deck gun and some anti-aircraft guns. Historically interesting but irrelevant to the modern discussion.
A return to a convoy system has also been discussed from time to time.
Discussed and dismissed as expensive and impractical. This isn't WWII and piracy is extremely rare. A tiny fraction of 1% of ships ever even are approached by pirates. It's cold but the economics of shipping don't support the expense.
The pirates are in this for the money, not primarily because of ideaology; if it looks like the could be killed then they might reconsider their chosen line of work.
Do you seriously think the pirates are unaware that this line of work is dangerous? It is work that desperate people do. Of course you are right that the solution is to make piracy as financially unappealing and physically dangerous as possible. But it doesn't automatically follow that the solution is to arm merchant ships. You're going to have a very hard time convincing of that proposition.
But internal polling among Nautilus members has indicated a "hardening of attitudes" in recent months, with more calling for armed protection, Linington said.
Meaning what? 5 people thought it was a good idea before and 10 do now? The article conveniently provides no actual numbers or data - merely a vague assertion about "hardening of attitudes" that could mean almost anything. Nice sound bite though.
There has always been discussion about it. Doesn't mean it's a good idea or that any reputable shipping companies are spending a lot of time on the problem. Right now it's pretty clear that arming merchant ships is a waste of resources on an insignificant problem. A problem to watch carefully I'll grant but nothing more.
If the pirates continue to get away with it then the number of attacks will continue to increase until it is worth it.
Perhaps but there aren't many attacks now and certainly not anywhere close to enough to consider arming merchant vessels. Piracy is rare and spectacular but it gets a lot more press than the problem probably deserves.
Eventually the insurance rates for sailing within 500 miles of the east African coast will become so high that arming merchant ships will become an attractive option.
Really? Then explain to me how those armed merchant vessels are going to dock anywhere in the world given that it is illegal. I suspect if it became that expensive then alternate routes would be considered and probably more than a few navies would take an interest in the region - oh wait, that has already happened.
I suspect that most merchant sailers wouldn't mind killing pirates in a gun battle or to prevent the takeover of their ship if it came to that.
You don't know any merchant sailors do you? I do. If they wanted gun battles they would have joined the Navy or the Coast Guard or even the Merchant Marines. It's a job - they want their paycheck and a minimal amount of drama.
As for the pirates being better armed that is not necessarily true.
Since virtually all merchant vessels today are unarmed, it is unquestionably true. This is a fact, not a point of debate.
Their accuracy with a crappy AK-47 (probably with a worn out barrel and worn parts) or even a decent one is going to be terrible until they are right on top of the merchant vessels.
Which is irrelevant since their purpose is to board the merchant vessel. Quite possible to do this without shooting at the vessel. Once they are on board, accuracy matters little. Numbers do. Pirates don't attack in smaller numbers than they merchant crew. Don't take my word for it, look it up yourself.
If the merchant vessels are equiped with heavy machine guns firing...
Which they aren't and won't be. Refer to the point about it being illegal in EVERY significant port in the world. Arming a merchant ship makes it de-facto a warship. Lots of messy legal problems with doing that.
It would also not be too difficult to mount a couple of 5 inch deck guns to discourage any larger pirate vessels from joining the fight.
Yes actually it would be difficult. It would be extremely expensive for one. The margins on shipping are not that good in the best of times. Good luck justifying the cost of the weaponry, training and extra crew. Good luck getting insurance on your ship equipped with 5 inch deck guns. Furthermore modern container ships and oil tankers are not designed to mount weaponry. Sure it could be done but that doesn't make it a good idea. The retrofits would be expensive and dangerous, not to mention wasteful. All this to avoid a few hundred attacks a year worldwide? Merchants are in more danger of drowning due to bad weather than they are from piracy. 50,000 vessels travel through the Strait of Malacca each year and there are at most a few hundred attacks. And your answer is to bolt 5 inch deck guns to every merchant vessel to solve this minor problem?
All of this was common practice during WWII for example.
There is a HUGE difference between arming against commerce raiders during a declared total war and arming against pirates in peacetime peacetime. Furthermore, merchant ships weren't really protected by being armed to any significant degree, they were ESCORTED by actual warships.
How difficult would it be to equip ships with Browning M2 [wikipedia.org].50 machine guns and man a watch for incoming pirate vessels
Difficult? Not at all. Expensive? Definitely - especially once you factor in insurance and extra manpower. Legal? Completely illegal in most ports. Sensible? Probably not given that piracy is actually extremely rare and that there is at best a vague legal framework supporting you if you shoot someone at sea - even in self defense.
There are a lot of reasons they don't arm merchant ships. Most ports will deny entry to any merchant ship that is armed. Most crews are not trained in combat. Pirates in practice rarely kill the crew members of vessels they attack. Most merchant ships have very small crews and normally are badly outnumbered by the pirates attacking them. Ships sailing in territorial waters may be subject to laws that are against them shooting a pirate even while under assault. And it goes on and on. Seriously, if it were as simple as arming the vessels, don't you think they would have done that already?
The Strait of Malacca is arguably the area with the most piracy. Over 50,000 ships pass through the area annually. There are at most a few hundred incidents of piracy worldwide each year (less than 300 in 2006). Now go ahead and justify the cost (financial and legal and moral) of arming all those ships against a very unlikely hazard.
Are we really that politically correct now that even killing a pirate is wrong?
Oh you can kill them but there are a few things to consider first:
Most merchant ships cannot carry deadly weapons legally into most ports in the world. Certainly not any of the big ports. Jail time or worse can result from violating these laws.
Most merchant sailors are not trained in combat
Most merchant ships have a small crew and when pirates attack they normally significantly outnumber the crew.
The small crew of a merchant ship even armed with deadly weapons would be hard pressed to stop a determined pirate attack
Killing pirates likely will just piss off the aforementioned larger and better armed group of pirates.
Having a properly trained security force on or traveling with a merchant ship is VERY expensive
The odds of a pirate attack are extremely low even in high piracy areas
If you are in the territorial waters of a foreign country you are subject to their laws and some places take a fairly dim view of killing another person even in self defense. Especially if you are not a citizen of that country and the (alleged) pirate is a citizen.
You had better be DAMN SURE they actually are pirates before you kill them
That said if you can shoot them dead, I'm pretty sure no one will mind. Provided you are in international waters AND you can prove your case that you didn't just murder someone AND you can explain why your ship is armed AND you can somehow figure out a way to kill a group of pirates that out numbers yours and is probably better armed.
The insurance company's job is to collect premiums and pay out when the doctor says "this person has a bad back" or "this person has a broken leg" or "this person is clinically depressed".
Bottom line, insurance companies HAVE to take the advice of "trusted" professionals, trusted or not, really. That is why we have doctors and lawyers etc - we must have someone who has the proper knowledge to make the ultimate decision.
The above statements could only be completely true in a world where fraud did not exist. Medical billing fraud is a multi-billion dollar problem and it hurts EVERYONE. Your costs and mine are higher because of medical billing fraud. Insurance companies, whether they be private insurers or the government, absolutely have a right to take steps to ensure that they are paying for reasonable services properly rendered. This doesn't excuse insurance companies from taking arbitrary and capricious actions that could deny payment for genuinely needed services. Nevertheless there are lots of corrupt patients and more than a few corrupt doctors out there. It is a real problem.
Please note, I'm not making any judgments one way or the other about this particular Facebook case. I'm merely asserting that insurance providers (private or public) do have a right to protect themselves from fraud and it is in all of our interest that they do just that.
Wear a stainless steel backed watch - it won't give you a rash.,
That depends on the alloy. Many stainless alloys have nickel in them and people do react to those alloys. Better watchmakers are undoubtedly aware of this and just avoid using the alloys that contain nickel.
My wife happens to be a dermatopathologist and I just now confirmed this with her. If anyone would be an authoritative source on this matter, she would.
Maybe you did. I tried wearing a wristwatch on many occasions for significant lengths of time (months). Rarely needed to know what time it was THAT immediately and the wrist strap never stopped annoying me. Tried numerous different watches and straps to no avail. I have a few wristwatches for the rare occasions when I wristwatch is necessary (athletic events mostly) but it's just not something I need or want to wear.
I think the fancy watches are very cool bits of engineering and manufacturing but I also think the people that actually buy high end wristwatches are generally pretentious. Nobody buys a Rolex because it is a nice bit of engineering; they buy it to show off the size of their wallet.
I'd think any true geek out there would appreciate the mechanical complexity of a quality watch (read: not quartz).
I do. They are amazing bits of engineering and manufacturing prowess. It does not logically follow though that I want to wear a wristwatch because of that admiration.
I have a few watches for the rare occasions when I actually need to carry a watch. Ordinarily I find a wristwatch more annoying than useful, so most of the time they are in a drawer somewhere.
A Rolex is a rather accurate and reliable pretentiousness detector.
Who knew that? Was the information dispersed to every single person living in New Orleans?
Local, State and Federal governments plus various agencies and the Army Corps of Engineers. It was public knowledge and was not hushed up in any way to my knowledge. I don't live anywhere near New Orleans and I had even read about it prior to Katrina.
I'm guessing it wasn't; so I'm sure more than a few people did not know that the levees were incapable of protecting them.
Then that is their fault. Nobody hid the information. If you chose to live somewhere it's your responsibility to prepare for the problems of living there. Where I live we get lots of snow. I'd be a moron if I didn't prepare my car and take precautions to ensure safety in the event of a prolonged power outage. Sometimes unexpected things happen but there was nothing unexpected about the effects of a major hurricane hitting New Orleans. There was copious information available prior to Katrina that pretty much predicted exactly what happened.
They probably didn't even know they were below sea level.
I don't buy that bit of excuse making for a second. If they didn't know they damn well should have known. It's not as if it was a secret.
What is your town's elevation? Hell, Cahokia IL is smack in the middle of the midwest and it's only 400 feet above sea level.
About 630ft in my case. If I get flooded animals will be lining up in twos.
And a lot of people, especially the poor, don't have much of a choice where they live.
Only the children and the handicapped. I've been poor myself but even poor people can move in the US. It isn't as easy as for those with means but its entirely possible. Even poor people in the US aren't generally so poor they can't relocate. It might be hard but most definitely have a choice.
But the disaster in N.O. was caused by the Corps of Engineer's incompetence.
Since the Corps of Engineers has had plans for DECADES to fix the problems and was never given the funds to make it happen, exactly how is that the ACoE's fault? Yes they bear some responsibility but the majority of the fault lies with the people who lived there and chose not to take responsibility themselves. If you live near a danger and do not constantly prod your government to mitigate that danger then the fault lies mostly with you. If the government won't fix it then move elsewhere. It's not that complicated.
It's scary; I have friends in the St Louis area. I just saw in the paper yesterday that the levees in Alton, IL are in bad shape. I hope the one in Caholia is good, I have friends there. When the hundred year flood hit in the nineties, the Mississippi was at the top of the levee there.
I lived in St Louis for several years. The people that live in the Mississippi and Missouri flood plain are pretty well aware of the dangers. If you live near a big river like that it is basically impossible to contain the biggest floods. There have been 3 very large floods in the last hundred years in the Saint Louis area and you can be sure that there will be another in the next 50-100 years. I have friends with property right on the Mississippi. They are insured as much as possible and they have evacuation procedures in place for their property. They are as prepared as they can be. Only a moron would assume that fellow citizens should subsidize your risk taking activities.
There are some projects that can only be undertaken by large resources: the reclamation of the Netherlands and the East Anglian Fens from the sea being successful examples.
True enough but it is also true that just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done. Some of the development of Southern Louisiana was simply a bad idea. They build because they could, not because they should and they did a shoddy job of it in the process. In my opinion the cities of Las Vegas and Phoenix are more examples of abominable use of resources that should be better put to use elsewhere. They're just a bad idea run amok.
Now, what about all the people who have roots in the area from before the hydrological works started?
I don't frankly care where your family is from. Nobody living today was alive before the development of New Orleans began. Obviously some development is more recent but people chose to live with that. Building below sea level when you have a choice not to do so is pretty obviously stupid to me. If the reclaimed land is needed for economic purposes fine but there is no excuse for people living there just because they can.
And what of the people who moved into the area on the basis of misrepresentation that the system was safe?
There was no misrepresentation here. The levee system was known to be inadequate to the expected demands that indeed were eventually placed on it.
Mmm. I think if you check the New Orleans flood map, you'll find that the hardest hit districts were the ones with the lowest social mobility. If you're born there, and can't afford to move anywhere else, then should you be damned for your "decision" to be poor?
Very, very few people in the US are so poor they cannot move elsewhere. Yes it's harder for those without means but it's not remotely impossible. I grew up in a family that was poor as church mice when I was little. We could have moved if we felt the need. Saying you can't move because you are poor is demonstrably untrue most of the time. Nobody promises you it will be easy but it most definitely is possible.
Perhaps the State has no responsibility to act for the benefit of its citizens, but if not, then what is its purpose?
Of course its job it to act for the benefit of the citizens but ONLY for those things the citizens can't do themselves. There is hardly an able bodied or able minded adult person in this country who could not pick up and move to another location within the US if they set their mind to it. They don't need the government's help to do that in most cases.
hat's the irony, actually. Normally, the same people who are big on "personal responsibility" are also big on "accountability". Why would they be opposed to the Army Corps of Engineers being "accountable" for fucking up?
Ohh the ACoE should be accountable but they aren't the folks primarily responsible. Responsibility should fall primarily on the people who lived near those levees without ever taking action to make damn sure they were strong enough and properly designed. The ACoE might have done a bad job but since the people who lived there KNEW about the problems and still did nothing for DECADES, the blame falls mostly on them. If someone does a bad job building my house and I don't complain about it for years after the fact that becomes my fault once enough time has passed.
One can legitimately assert that this bit of engineering shouldn't have been their job; but it has been for some decades now and they've never been absolved of it. Why would anybody not want them to be accountable for doing their job properly?
Of course they should but money and resources and attention has to be allocated to the problem. The ACoE doesn't control that. Local, State and sometimes Federal governments control that. Those institutions are answerable to the people who chose to live in harms way and those people did not consider it sufficiently important to be bothered. They knowingly took the risk and so they should bear the bulk of the consequences. The ACoE is responsible to some degree but they are the least culpable party involved in my opinion.
Living below sea level is stupid. However, living below sea level behind a levee designed specifically to make that area habitable, which has been doing exactly that for years and years now is considerably less stupid.
The levees in question were known to be inadequate and yet nothing was done. So it goes straight back into the stupid column in my opinion. It's one thing if you know about the danger and do all you can to protect yourself. It's quite another if you just lackadaisically decide to get to it later or maybe never. There apparently were even plans that had been drawn up but were never implemented for various reasons. It seems pretty clear as well from the response that many if not most people living there had never seriously considered emergency and evacuation procedures or proper levels of insurance. If you can't get insurance, maybe that's a clue you shouldn't be living in that location?
I'm just waiting for Miami to get hit by a major hurricane. If you think New Orleans was a mess wait till South Florida gets trashed.
Does "individual responsibility" require near-Cartesian levels of doubt in every possible piece of infrastructure?
Why not? I have car insurance, home insurance, fire insurance, flood insurance, liability insurance, medical insurance as well as plans to deal with most of the reasonably foreseeable events connected with bad stuff that could happen in my life. You should too and I think that is entirely reasonable. We have infrastructure to help but it has limits. One good sized flu pandemic or natural disaster and it's not hard for our emergency infrastructure to get overwhelmed. At that point you are on your own so you damn well better prepare.
60% of the population of the Netherlands live below sea level. Are they all stupid too?
Arguably yes if they expect to be bailed out (pun intended) from a flood by those smart enough to live above sea level. If someone chooses to live with a known and avoidable danger that's that person's prerogative but their bad choice of dwelling location is their responsibility, not mine. Buy insurance and have a emergency plan or move somewhere safer. Katrina was a tragedy but the tragedy of it was that much of the worst damage was avoidable by the very people it affected. The problems were known ahead of time and ignored for years by the people and local governments who lived along the gulf coast. I don't really blame the federal government despite their incompetent response, I blame the people that made a conscious choice to live in harm's way and did little to nothing to protect themselves. Some didn't have a choice (children for instance) but many did and many chose to ignore the danger for many years.
I don't think the Corps of Engineers is blameless but I can make an analogy (yes another one) that this is rather like hiring a contractor to build your house. The contractor might have done a shit job but if you knew about it and did nothing for decades it no longer is the contractor's fault - it becomes your fault.
If they're really operating as a non-profit, then their year-over-year balance shouldn't really be increasing that much.
Speaking as a certified accountant, non-profit status has NOTHING inherently to do with the amount of cash they hold. A non-profit organization simply does not distribute its surplus assets to owners or shareholders and instead uses them to further the goals of the organization. If holding a lot of cash would further the goals of the organization they can do that. The IRS might review their status if they are holding a lot of cash for no obvious purpose but by itself it means nothing. Foundations typically have large amounts of cash and moderately liquid investments. Non-profit organization can have a significant rise in assets and that is fine. Many hospitals and hospital systems are non-profit but they have large amounts of cash and other assets and frequently grow significantly.
Personally I question the idea that being non-profit should mean tax exempt (especially for religions with vast assets) unless it is an organization with a clear charitable charter but I didn't write the rules.
We have very old documents attesting to Jesus Christ being crucified, rising from the dead, and ascending into the heavens.
That is not a falsifiable claim. I cannot disprove it. There is NO proof that heaven even exists much less that anyone has ever risen from the dead and ascended to heaven. The mere fact of someone saying it is so does not make it so. I need no belief in a supernatural event to find it credible that Julius Caesar was emperor. I don't need a belief in a supernatural event to believe that someone named Jesus Christ existed but I would need such a belief to belief he was the son of a diety. Written evidence has to be CREDIBLE. If you are going to claim a miracle, you had better back it up with extraordinary proof.
No, those laws create the corner cases of how we interact with each other.
Sometimes that is true. Laws don't exist in a vacuum. Any system of rules is pretty much inevitably going to have some weird outcomes.
How many hundreds of pages of laws exist in an attempt to outlaw fraud? Fraud: Lying or misleading someone in order to aquire their money or property.
Like I said before, the principles are simple, the details are not. You have to define what constitutes a lie or deception. You have to define the circumstances where harm is done. Etc, etc. The devil is in the details.
The problem is the weaseling...
Sure, show me any set of rules and I promise you that people will push those rules as far as possible. The more vague the rules, the less clear where the line for permissible behavior is. Our society is complicated so it should come as no surprise that our laws reflect that complexity.
Note that I never said having lots of rules was a great thing, merely that it is apparently better than the alternatives we have. If you can find some way to get people to calibrate their interpretations of principle based rules and not try to take advantage of weaknesses or loopholes I'm listening. But I suspect you don't have any better ideas on that score than I do.
Slashdot Mirror
Weapons and training are "VERY expensive?" How about the cost of stolen cargo, is that cheap? The ransom paid for kidnapped crewmembers, how cheap is that?
Yes, weapons and training and insurance are significantly more expensive than the small amount of lost cargo and ransoms paid. You can be quite sure this calculation has been performed many times over. Should piracy become a much bigger problem than it currently is I'm sure the calculation will get revisited.
This whole "anti-gun" argument seems to revolve around the fact that it's hard to dock a merchant ship in international ports if it's armed. It's a bullshit argument.
If you think that you haven't been listening. That is merely one reason why its a bad idea. Arming merchant ships is a bad idea because it is economically unfeasible, legally difficult, questionably effective and morally questionable. You are proposing a very expensive and problematic solution to what amounts to petty crime. There are no more than a few hundred incidents of piracy WORLDWIDE each year. It's just not that big a problem.
Either change the laws (and any nation that doesn't want to cooperate can find out how nice not having any commerce is),
OK smart guy, go and get the laws changed. Have fun doing that in pretty much each and EVERY country around the world including the United States. Clearly you think this is easy so show us how it's done.
Put the anti-pirate people on a smaller craft that does not enter sovereign waters. Easy solution. Contractors can be hired to escort your ships through danger zones armed to the fucking teeth. Problem solved.
Great. Even if that were a complete solution (and it isn't) you still have the problem of how you are going to pay for it. Those contractors you mention are already available but most merchant ships don't use them. Why? Because they are VERY expensive and piracy just isn't really that big a problem. Furthermore there are plenty of high piracy areas (bits of the Strait of Malacca for instance) that are IN territorial waters. Explain to me how your mercenaries are going to protect a ship without violating sovereign law in that case. I'm pretty sure you can't.
This would only really be a probelm with permanent mounts, such as the aforementioned deck guns, while the heavy machine guns could easily be offloaded...
Easily? You're going to offload heavy weaponry while in international waters? Yes you can do it but easy isn't the word I'd use. Never mind that many incidents of piracy do not occur in international waters.
This way, a crew of military contractors could be transferred from ship to ship, along with their armament, to escort them through the dangerous area without ever nearing an unfriendly port themselves.
They already do this. Guess what? There still are problems. In places like the Strait of Malacca there are narrow areas where there are effectively no international waters. 50,000 vessels a year go through. Those contractors are subject to the local laws if they chase a pirate.
There are ways to work out the logistics if the laws cannot be changed.
Perhaps but not the economics. Armed escorts are very, very expensive. Arming ships is very very expensive. Shipping companies are frequently unprofitable and might not be able to pass on the costs to their customers. Until piracy becomes a MUCH bigger problem, the economics of the problem will be the strongest argument against arming merchant ships.
You have a very simplistic view of this problem. Seriously, if it was simply as easy as arming a merchant ship, don't you think they would have done it already?
Armament in those days usually consisted of at least one 5 inch or so surplus deck gun...
Liberty ships (by far the most common) were apparently armed with a single aft mounted 4 inch deck gun and some anti-aircraft guns. Historically interesting but irrelevant to the modern discussion.
A return to a convoy system has also been discussed from time to time.
Discussed and dismissed as expensive and impractical. This isn't WWII and piracy is extremely rare. A tiny fraction of 1% of ships ever even are approached by pirates. It's cold but the economics of shipping don't support the expense.
The pirates are in this for the money, not primarily because of ideaology; if it looks like the could be killed then they might reconsider their chosen line of work.
Do you seriously think the pirates are unaware that this line of work is dangerous? It is work that desperate people do. Of course you are right that the solution is to make piracy as financially unappealing and physically dangerous as possible. But it doesn't automatically follow that the solution is to arm merchant ships. You're going to have a very hard time convincing of that proposition.
But internal polling among Nautilus members has indicated a "hardening of attitudes" in recent months, with more calling for armed protection, Linington said.
Meaning what? 5 people thought it was a good idea before and 10 do now? The article conveniently provides no actual numbers or data - merely a vague assertion about "hardening of attitudes" that could mean almost anything. Nice sound bite though.
There has always been discussion about it. Doesn't mean it's a good idea or that any reputable shipping companies are spending a lot of time on the problem. Right now it's pretty clear that arming merchant ships is a waste of resources on an insignificant problem. A problem to watch carefully I'll grant but nothing more.
If the pirates continue to get away with it then the number of attacks will continue to increase until it is worth it.
Perhaps but there aren't many attacks now and certainly not anywhere close to enough to consider arming merchant vessels. Piracy is rare and spectacular but it gets a lot more press than the problem probably deserves.
Eventually the insurance rates for sailing within 500 miles of the east African coast will become so high that arming merchant ships will become an attractive option.
Really? Then explain to me how those armed merchant vessels are going to dock anywhere in the world given that it is illegal. I suspect if it became that expensive then alternate routes would be considered and probably more than a few navies would take an interest in the region - oh wait, that has already happened.
I suspect that most merchant sailers wouldn't mind killing pirates in a gun battle or to prevent the takeover of their ship if it came to that.
You don't know any merchant sailors do you? I do. If they wanted gun battles they would have joined the Navy or the Coast Guard or even the Merchant Marines. It's a job - they want their paycheck and a minimal amount of drama.
As for the pirates being better armed that is not necessarily true.
Since virtually all merchant vessels today are unarmed, it is unquestionably true. This is a fact, not a point of debate.
Their accuracy with a crappy AK-47 (probably with a worn out barrel and worn parts) or even a decent one is going to be terrible until they are right on top of the merchant vessels.
Which is irrelevant since their purpose is to board the merchant vessel. Quite possible to do this without shooting at the vessel. Once they are on board, accuracy matters little. Numbers do. Pirates don't attack in smaller numbers than they merchant crew. Don't take my word for it, look it up yourself.
If the merchant vessels are equiped with heavy machine guns firing...
Which they aren't and won't be. Refer to the point about it being illegal in EVERY significant port in the world. Arming a merchant ship makes it de-facto a warship. Lots of messy legal problems with doing that.
It would also not be too difficult to mount a couple of 5 inch deck guns to discourage any larger pirate vessels from joining the fight.
Yes actually it would be difficult. It would be extremely expensive for one. The margins on shipping are not that good in the best of times. Good luck justifying the cost of the weaponry, training and extra crew. Good luck getting insurance on your ship equipped with 5 inch deck guns. Furthermore modern container ships and oil tankers are not designed to mount weaponry. Sure it could be done but that doesn't make it a good idea. The retrofits would be expensive and dangerous, not to mention wasteful. All this to avoid a few hundred attacks a year worldwide? Merchants are in more danger of drowning due to bad weather than they are from piracy. 50,000 vessels travel through the Strait of Malacca each year and there are at most a few hundred attacks. And your answer is to bolt 5 inch deck guns to every merchant vessel to solve this minor problem?
All of this was common practice during WWII for example.
There is a HUGE difference between arming against commerce raiders during a declared total war and arming against pirates in peacetime peacetime. Furthermore, merchant ships weren't really protected by being armed to any significant degree, they were ESCORTED by actual warships.
How difficult would it be to equip ships with Browning M2 [wikipedia.org] .50 machine guns and man a watch for incoming pirate vessels
Difficult? Not at all. Expensive? Definitely - especially once you factor in insurance and extra manpower. Legal? Completely illegal in most ports. Sensible? Probably not given that piracy is actually extremely rare and that there is at best a vague legal framework supporting you if you shoot someone at sea - even in self defense.
There are a lot of reasons they don't arm merchant ships. Most ports will deny entry to any merchant ship that is armed. Most crews are not trained in combat. Pirates in practice rarely kill the crew members of vessels they attack. Most merchant ships have very small crews and normally are badly outnumbered by the pirates attacking them. Ships sailing in territorial waters may be subject to laws that are against them shooting a pirate even while under assault. And it goes on and on. Seriously, if it were as simple as arming the vessels, don't you think they would have done that already?
The Strait of Malacca is arguably the area with the most piracy. Over 50,000 ships pass through the area annually. There are at most a few hundred incidents of piracy worldwide each year (less than 300 in 2006). Now go ahead and justify the cost (financial and legal and moral) of arming all those ships against a very unlikely hazard.
Are we really that politically correct now that even killing a pirate is wrong?
Oh you can kill them but there are a few things to consider first:
That said if you can shoot them dead, I'm pretty sure no one will mind. Provided you are in international waters AND you can prove your case that you didn't just murder someone AND you can explain why your ship is armed AND you can somehow figure out a way to kill a group of pirates that out numbers yours and is probably better armed.
The insurance company's job is to collect premiums and pay out when the doctor says "this person has a bad back" or "this person has a broken leg" or "this person is clinically depressed".
Bottom line, insurance companies HAVE to take the advice of "trusted" professionals, trusted or not, really. That is why we have doctors and lawyers etc - we must have someone who has the proper knowledge to make the ultimate decision.
The above statements could only be completely true in a world where fraud did not exist. Medical billing fraud is a multi-billion dollar problem and it hurts EVERYONE. Your costs and mine are higher because of medical billing fraud. Insurance companies, whether they be private insurers or the government, absolutely have a right to take steps to ensure that they are paying for reasonable services properly rendered. This doesn't excuse insurance companies from taking arbitrary and capricious actions that could deny payment for genuinely needed services. Nevertheless there are lots of corrupt patients and more than a few corrupt doctors out there. It is a real problem.
Please note, I'm not making any judgments one way or the other about this particular Facebook case. I'm merely asserting that insurance providers (private or public) do have a right to protect themselves from fraud and it is in all of our interest that they do just that.
My phone was free. Same with my last phone and the one before that.
Unless your phone was a gift it wasn't free. You paid for it, just not up front.
Wear a stainless steel backed watch - it won't give you a rash.,
That depends on the alloy. Many stainless alloys have nickel in them and people do react to those alloys. Better watchmakers are undoubtedly aware of this and just avoid using the alloys that contain nickel.
My wife happens to be a dermatopathologist and I just now confirmed this with her. If anyone would be an authoritative source on this matter, she would.
You get over it in a couple of weeks to a month.
Maybe you did. I tried wearing a wristwatch on many occasions for significant lengths of time (months). Rarely needed to know what time it was THAT immediately and the wrist strap never stopped annoying me. Tried numerous different watches and straps to no avail. I have a few wristwatches for the rare occasions when I wristwatch is necessary (athletic events mostly) but it's just not something I need or want to wear.
I think the fancy watches are very cool bits of engineering and manufacturing but I also think the people that actually buy high end wristwatches are generally pretentious. Nobody buys a Rolex because it is a nice bit of engineering; they buy it to show off the size of their wallet.
I'd think any true geek out there would appreciate the mechanical complexity of a quality watch (read: not quartz).
I do. They are amazing bits of engineering and manufacturing prowess. It does not logically follow though that I want to wear a wristwatch because of that admiration.
I have a few watches for the rare occasions when I actually need to carry a watch. Ordinarily I find a wristwatch more annoying than useful, so most of the time they are in a drawer somewhere.
A Rolex is a rather accurate and reliable pretentiousness detector.
Who knew that? Was the information dispersed to every single person living in New Orleans?
Local, State and Federal governments plus various agencies and the Army Corps of Engineers. It was public knowledge and was not hushed up in any way to my knowledge. I don't live anywhere near New Orleans and I had even read about it prior to Katrina.
I'm guessing it wasn't; so I'm sure more than a few people did not know that the levees were incapable of protecting them.
Then that is their fault. Nobody hid the information. If you chose to live somewhere it's your responsibility to prepare for the problems of living there. Where I live we get lots of snow. I'd be a moron if I didn't prepare my car and take precautions to ensure safety in the event of a prolonged power outage. Sometimes unexpected things happen but there was nothing unexpected about the effects of a major hurricane hitting New Orleans. There was copious information available prior to Katrina that pretty much predicted exactly what happened.
They probably didn't even know they were below sea level.
I don't buy that bit of excuse making for a second. If they didn't know they damn well should have known. It's not as if it was a secret.
What is your town's elevation? Hell, Cahokia IL is smack in the middle of the midwest and it's only 400 feet above sea level.
About 630ft in my case. If I get flooded animals will be lining up in twos.
And a lot of people, especially the poor, don't have much of a choice where they live.
Only the children and the handicapped. I've been poor myself but even poor people can move in the US. It isn't as easy as for those with means but its entirely possible. Even poor people in the US aren't generally so poor they can't relocate. It might be hard but most definitely have a choice.
But the disaster in N.O. was caused by the Corps of Engineer's incompetence.
Since the Corps of Engineers has had plans for DECADES to fix the problems and was never given the funds to make it happen, exactly how is that the ACoE's fault? Yes they bear some responsibility but the majority of the fault lies with the people who lived there and chose not to take responsibility themselves. If you live near a danger and do not constantly prod your government to mitigate that danger then the fault lies mostly with you. If the government won't fix it then move elsewhere. It's not that complicated.
It's scary; I have friends in the St Louis area. I just saw in the paper yesterday that the levees in Alton, IL are in bad shape. I hope the one in Caholia is good, I have friends there. When the hundred year flood hit in the nineties, the Mississippi was at the top of the levee there.
I lived in St Louis for several years. The people that live in the Mississippi and Missouri flood plain are pretty well aware of the dangers. If you live near a big river like that it is basically impossible to contain the biggest floods. There have been 3 very large floods in the last hundred years in the Saint Louis area and you can be sure that there will be another in the next 50-100 years. I have friends with property right on the Mississippi. They are insured as much as possible and they have evacuation procedures in place for their property. They are as prepared as they can be. Only a moron would assume that fellow citizens should subsidize your risk taking activities.
There are some projects that can only be undertaken by large resources: the reclamation of the Netherlands and the East Anglian Fens from the sea being successful examples.
True enough but it is also true that just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done. Some of the development of Southern Louisiana was simply a bad idea. They build because they could, not because they should and they did a shoddy job of it in the process. In my opinion the cities of Las Vegas and Phoenix are more examples of abominable use of resources that should be better put to use elsewhere. They're just a bad idea run amok.
Now, what about all the people who have roots in the area from before the hydrological works started?
I don't frankly care where your family is from. Nobody living today was alive before the development of New Orleans began. Obviously some development is more recent but people chose to live with that. Building below sea level when you have a choice not to do so is pretty obviously stupid to me. If the reclaimed land is needed for economic purposes fine but there is no excuse for people living there just because they can.
And what of the people who moved into the area on the basis of misrepresentation that the system was safe?
There was no misrepresentation here. The levee system was known to be inadequate to the expected demands that indeed were eventually placed on it.
Mmm. I think if you check the New Orleans flood map, you'll find that the hardest hit districts were the ones with the lowest social mobility. If you're born there, and can't afford to move anywhere else, then should you be damned for your "decision" to be poor?
Very, very few people in the US are so poor they cannot move elsewhere. Yes it's harder for those without means but it's not remotely impossible. I grew up in a family that was poor as church mice when I was little. We could have moved if we felt the need. Saying you can't move because you are poor is demonstrably untrue most of the time. Nobody promises you it will be easy but it most definitely is possible.
Perhaps the State has no responsibility to act for the benefit of its citizens, but if not, then what is its purpose?
Of course its job it to act for the benefit of the citizens but ONLY for those things the citizens can't do themselves. There is hardly an able bodied or able minded adult person in this country who could not pick up and move to another location within the US if they set their mind to it. They don't need the government's help to do that in most cases.
hat's the irony, actually. Normally, the same people who are big on "personal responsibility" are also big on "accountability". Why would they be opposed to the Army Corps of Engineers being "accountable" for fucking up?
Ohh the ACoE should be accountable but they aren't the folks primarily responsible. Responsibility should fall primarily on the people who lived near those levees without ever taking action to make damn sure they were strong enough and properly designed. The ACoE might have done a bad job but since the people who lived there KNEW about the problems and still did nothing for DECADES, the blame falls mostly on them. If someone does a bad job building my house and I don't complain about it for years after the fact that becomes my fault once enough time has passed.
One can legitimately assert that this bit of engineering shouldn't have been their job; but it has been for some decades now and they've never been absolved of it. Why would anybody not want them to be accountable for doing their job properly?
Of course they should but money and resources and attention has to be allocated to the problem. The ACoE doesn't control that. Local, State and sometimes Federal governments control that. Those institutions are answerable to the people who chose to live in harms way and those people did not consider it sufficiently important to be bothered. They knowingly took the risk and so they should bear the bulk of the consequences. The ACoE is responsible to some degree but they are the least culpable party involved in my opinion.
Living below sea level is stupid. However, living below sea level behind a levee designed specifically to make that area habitable, which has been doing exactly that for years and years now is considerably less stupid.
The levees in question were known to be inadequate and yet nothing was done. So it goes straight back into the stupid column in my opinion. It's one thing if you know about the danger and do all you can to protect yourself. It's quite another if you just lackadaisically decide to get to it later or maybe never. There apparently were even plans that had been drawn up but were never implemented for various reasons. It seems pretty clear as well from the response that many if not most people living there had never seriously considered emergency and evacuation procedures or proper levels of insurance. If you can't get insurance, maybe that's a clue you shouldn't be living in that location?
I'm just waiting for Miami to get hit by a major hurricane. If you think New Orleans was a mess wait till South Florida gets trashed.
Does "individual responsibility" require near-Cartesian levels of doubt in every possible piece of infrastructure?
Why not? I have car insurance, home insurance, fire insurance, flood insurance, liability insurance, medical insurance as well as plans to deal with most of the reasonably foreseeable events connected with bad stuff that could happen in my life. You should too and I think that is entirely reasonable. We have infrastructure to help but it has limits. One good sized flu pandemic or natural disaster and it's not hard for our emergency infrastructure to get overwhelmed. At that point you are on your own so you damn well better prepare.
60% of the population of the Netherlands live below sea level. Are they all stupid too?
Arguably yes if they expect to be bailed out (pun intended) from a flood by those smart enough to live above sea level. If someone chooses to live with a known and avoidable danger that's that person's prerogative but their bad choice of dwelling location is their responsibility, not mine. Buy insurance and have a emergency plan or move somewhere safer. Katrina was a tragedy but the tragedy of it was that much of the worst damage was avoidable by the very people it affected. The problems were known ahead of time and ignored for years by the people and local governments who lived along the gulf coast. I don't really blame the federal government despite their incompetent response, I blame the people that made a conscious choice to live in harm's way and did little to nothing to protect themselves. Some didn't have a choice (children for instance) but many did and many chose to ignore the danger for many years.
I don't think the Corps of Engineers is blameless but I can make an analogy (yes another one) that this is rather like hiring a contractor to build your house. The contractor might have done a shit job but if you knew about it and did nothing for decades it no longer is the contractor's fault - it becomes your fault.
If they're really operating as a non-profit, then their year-over-year balance shouldn't really be increasing that much.
Speaking as a certified accountant, non-profit status has NOTHING inherently to do with the amount of cash they hold. A non-profit organization simply does not distribute its surplus assets to owners or shareholders and instead uses them to further the goals of the organization. If holding a lot of cash would further the goals of the organization they can do that. The IRS might review their status if they are holding a lot of cash for no obvious purpose but by itself it means nothing. Foundations typically have large amounts of cash and moderately liquid investments. Non-profit organization can have a significant rise in assets and that is fine. Many hospitals and hospital systems are non-profit but they have large amounts of cash and other assets and frequently grow significantly.
Personally I question the idea that being non-profit should mean tax exempt (especially for religions with vast assets) unless it is an organization with a clear charitable charter but I didn't write the rules.
We have very old documents attesting to Jesus Christ being crucified, rising from the dead, and ascending into the heavens.
That is not a falsifiable claim. I cannot disprove it. There is NO proof that heaven even exists much less that anyone has ever risen from the dead and ascended to heaven. The mere fact of someone saying it is so does not make it so. I need no belief in a supernatural event to find it credible that Julius Caesar was emperor. I don't need a belief in a supernatural event to believe that someone named Jesus Christ existed but I would need such a belief to belief he was the son of a diety. Written evidence has to be CREDIBLE. If you are going to claim a miracle, you had better back it up with extraordinary proof.
All Danish mothers should be required by law to watch 2 hours of Chuck Norris per day during pregnancy.
Is there a shortage of rednecks in Denmark? *cough*Texas Ranger*cough*
What's with the recent onslaught of Manager-apologists?
So pointing out that the real world isn't actually a Dilbert comic strip makes one an "apologist". Right...
No, those laws create the corner cases of how we interact with each other.
Sometimes that is true. Laws don't exist in a vacuum. Any system of rules is pretty much inevitably going to have some weird outcomes.
How many hundreds of pages of laws exist in an attempt to outlaw fraud? Fraud: Lying or misleading someone in order to aquire their money or property.
Like I said before, the principles are simple, the details are not. You have to define what constitutes a lie or deception. You have to define the circumstances where harm is done. Etc, etc. The devil is in the details.
The problem is the weaseling...
Sure, show me any set of rules and I promise you that people will push those rules as far as possible. The more vague the rules, the less clear where the line for permissible behavior is. Our society is complicated so it should come as no surprise that our laws reflect that complexity.
Note that I never said having lots of rules was a great thing, merely that it is apparently better than the alternatives we have. If you can find some way to get people to calibrate their interpretations of principle based rules and not try to take advantage of weaknesses or loopholes I'm listening. But I suspect you don't have any better ideas on that score than I do.