But, I never said it would only take one letter. A little bit of persistence is required, but either way you'll waste a lot less time mailing it than phoning.
At 46 cents(USD) (source: https://www.usps.com/business/prices.htm) per stamp just how many letters (stamps) we talking to reverse a $14.64 (61 cent * 24 months) charge? Looks like the crossover is at 32 stamps (.46*32=$14.74)(USD).
Basically, if you make minimum wage (or somewhat over minimum wage) its worth your time to fight it. If you make substantially more, just what are you willing to volunteer to 'free the world' from their tyranny.
Is what they are doing right and proper? Probably not. Is there much you can do about it? Again, probably not.
What's the solution then? Inundate your state's Attorney General's office with complaints. One.46 cent letter (per person) * 10000 complaints will get his attention. Contact your Congress critter, too. Then the local news stations.
And I'm sorry I have MOD points; but, wont give them to you today. I felt saying, "Thank you," directly to you was more important to me today. You brought a smile, a tear, and some humanity to/. today.
The only privacy agreement they are under is the one you (and millions of others) signed up for AND agreed to. I truly hope you are not shocked to hear this; but, they sell your information by data mining the heck out of it and categorizing you (and millions of others) into nice little packages of "Would probably buy" product X. Advertisers stumble over themselves attempting to get your eyeballs (and millions of others) into looking at their advert so you (and millions of others) have a chance to buy their product or service(s).
Do you use Google? Their whole business model is to sell profiles to advertisers. Bing, Yahoo!, AskJeeves, and SLASHDOT, too.
The system is probably running Linux. It takes a while to become ready after the power switch is turned on, which is typical of Linux. A smaller RTOS would likely come up much faster. The fact that the device requires networking, and streaming of sound and video also lends itself to a Linux system. Linux already includes much of the software to make everything work. The size of the RAM and Flash suggest a lean, but very workable Linux based system.
Emphasis mine. Really? I've found my Linux installs to be very fast booting - certainly faster than Windows machines. Also, according to your pics there is an 80MHz crystal on there - any modern day OS you threw on that loaded from some external storage cluster would take a while to load. However, I didn't see any SD Card, SSDs or other external media device with which to hold a larger OS which means it's all embedded in one of those IC chips you couldn't find any information on.
Having said that, there are version of Linux which can fit on a single floppy drive - about 1.2Megabytes - and in this case the OS has been burned into one of the ICs. Point here is that it may not even be Linux.
Seriously? "US Refuses To Sign ITU Treaty Over Internet Provisions" is the title of this piece?
From what I could tell, even TFSummary mentions multiple countries refuse to sign. But, "OMG! Teh Un1t3d 5t4t3s refusors to p3n h4x moar documents! Roooaarrr!!1"
A more sensationalist title I've not seen on/. for a while.
How about a more neutral tone for story summaries? Maybe, I don't know:
Multiple countries fail to agree on ITU Treaty Multiple countries disagree on ITU Treaty content Differences still exist between countries involved in ITU Treaty ITU Treaty content to undergo more revisions
Certainly the collection of the data should have never happened. However, instead of punishing the ISP, Anonymous is punishing the people who's data was copied from the ISP by publishing it to 'teh interwebs'. The ISP isn't going to be held accountable if someone (AKA: a criminal) uses this information to steal identities.
Here's the crux. Let's say that the stolen data isn't used by a criminal organisation for 5, 10 or more years. Enough of it will still be valid for identity thieves to use 10 years from now. Companies usually only pay for about 2 years of identity protection after a data breach like this. (Which is another problem, I agree!) That being said... Good job, Anonymous! You effectively made more than a few victims to your childish antics which will negatively effect these peoples lives for years to come.
So. Who did Anonymous victimize again? The ISP or ump-teen thousand innocent people?
I'll end this by discussion by filling in the typical idealistic response now. "But,...but,...those people shouldn't allow their data to be retained and shouldn't be doing business with that ISP."
As if they had a choice. By the ISP, by the government, or by Anonymous.
His lessons are too slow. It's like getting a lesson from Grandpa Simpson. He only teaches one tiny basic concept per video and it takes him at least five minutes to get there and another five repeating, and repeating, and repeating. I can't watch more than half a video before I can't take it anymore.
Not all students can learn as quickly and easily as most/. readers.
Indeed. In fact/.ers are so smart that most of them don't even have to read an article to know all the answers!
Neat article you linked to there. Here's how it read to me.
TERRY GROSS: Right. So you know, you write that in Dubai they don't have, like, a sewage infrastructure to support high-rises like this one. So what do they do with the sewage?
KATE ASCHER: A variety of buildings there, some can access a municipal system but many of them actually use trucks to take the sewage out of individual buildings and then they wait on a queue to put it into a waste water treatment plant. So it's a fairly primitive system.
GROSS!
ASCHER: That's right. I'm told they can wait up to 24 hours before they get to the head of the queue. Now, there is a municipal system that is being invested in and I assume will connect all of these tall buildings in some point in the near future, but they're certainly not alone. In India many buildings are responsible for providing their own water and their own waste water removal.
So it's, it's really – we're very fortunate in this country that we assume we can plug into an urban system that can handle whatever waste the building produces. That's not the case everywhere else in the world.
GROSS!
ASCHER: Right. Well, you know, you have to remember that a place like Dubai really emerged in the last 50 years. It was a sleepy, you know, Bedouin town half a century ago. And what you do is when you bring in the world's, you know, most sophisticated architects and engineers, you can literally build anything, including a building of 140 or 150 stories. But designing a municipal network of sewage treatment is in some ways more complex.
It certainly requires more money and more time to make it happen, so one just seemed to jump ahead of the other.
The trip Columbus took was ultimately to find a cheaper way to India. The fact that he found a new world was merely a coincidence, and actually meant a failure of the original mission.
Really? You're saying Columbus failed? Knowing what we know today about the shape of the world - which peoples of his time most certainly did not - can you really sit there and say he failed? He never had a chance! When someone is set up to fail, whether the participants know it or not, can you call it a failure? IMHO, I think not. Tragedy, maybe, but not failure - especially when so much more was learned about the world and set about events that altered the lives of damn near half the planet.
The investors that financed Columbus' trip were in it to make more money.
In the old days, government attitudes had swung perhaps to the other side: they completely ignored risks and were quite reckless at times. Good for exploration, bad for the health of people.
It might be interesting to add that a large portion of the explorations was (co-)funded by companies. The East India Company (both the Dutch and the English one) were companies, and were not owned by the crown or government.
It's also interesting that Spain offered Columbus 10% of any trade proceeds he gained from his trip. He was never paid.
And that's just compounded by the low availability of breathable air.
Actually, you're close. Underway (that means out to sea) subs purposefully keep their oxygen levels low - very low. So low that a cigarette will immediately extinguish when the smoker is not inhaling. It must be re-lit before each puff.
But that's not important. The important part is that whatever is attempting to catch fire would smoulder for a bit before flaming up - thereby catching the eye/ear/nose of the watch or any other passing crew member.
In port, oxygen levels are normal to the atmospheric oxygen levels of the surrounding city. (By the way, Norfolk, VA smells bad. - Norfolk sub sailors know what I'm talking about.;P )
This is not correct. Actually the atmosphere in the boat while underway is 19-21% oxygen. Atmospheric oxygen levels are around 20% worldwide. The atmosphere on the ship is no different in any way from the atmosphere that you are currently in most likely (gas wise). What IS different is the pressure which changes with the depth the ship is at, the amount of time since the ship has "equalized pressure" by putting the exaust mast up, and the amount of people on the ship (you all breathe out more than you breathe in).
And this is where *your* boat took chances. Our boat kept the oxygen levels at about 13% to 15%. Yes, you read that correctly. Again, the smokers had to inhale *deeply* while attempting to light their cigarettes so they could create enough air-draw across the surface of their *lighters* to get the lighter to even light so they could light their cigarette. Low oxygen levels starve fires.
You say you've been in 3 fires and they were extinguished within 10 minutes? I'm very glad you did. However, wow. Amazing. How many captains did your boat(s) go through? While we had our own scares we only had 1 real fire on board while underway and it was nothing more than a smoking rag. Someone left it on top of the CO2 Candle where it began to smoke. It was amazing. I was one of the few who showed up in an EAB. Three guys showed up in their skivvies. People were on it *instantly*.
The only other time we had a near miss (and the scariest moment of my life, hands down) was when our 4500lbs Hydraulic line ruptured in the engine room. It was spraying 4500lbs PSI hydraulic fluid into the engine room. If the roving watch underway hadn't been standing *right* next to the kill switch when it ruptured I might not be here today. We surfaced and remained surfaced for 3 days drawing circles on nav charts in sea state 3 to sea state 4 seas. If the oxygen levels were any higher AND (I stress AND) the fluid would have sprayed at 4500psi for more than 30 seconds, it would have been a flame-thrower.
It's purely up to the CO on what level of O2 he wants the boat to run around at. Maybe they've enacted some regulation since I got out in late 1996; but, don't sit there and say I'm not correct. Certainly, in port the ship's O2 levels are in keeping with the surround local atmosphere - ~20%. Our boat kept O2 levels low purposefully under-weigh.
But maybe they had problems getting the people out first. Subs don't have too many doors on them, and if the fire is between 25 crew and the door and there's no other route, sealing off isn't an option.
I find it hard to come to a conclusion where this would become a problem. There are multiple exits in most areas that are 'dead ends'. There'd have to be a pretty messed up situation that prevented ~25 people from escaping a location without them trying the emergency route *before* the emergency route became blocked.
Okay so oddly enough there isnt really an "emergency route" on the ship for reasons that I wont detail here (it would take too long to explain). I do have to say that there are contingency plans in place for this kind of thing un
Uh, no, he isn't. He's sitting high and mighty and it's because of his insight and dedication to his craft that the fire's threat to the reactor was minimal.
I know that fire in a sub is considered one of the most dangerous threats there is
yep, fire is usually considered the #1 hazard aboard space ships and subs. Simply because the first thing you normally do when there's a fire is evacuate, something that's not such an easy option for them.
Evacuating ship is *not* the first thing submariners do. They attack fires with a vengeance. One, it's stealing our oxygen. Two, it's polluting our oxygen supply with *deadly* gases. Three, it can kill you fairly quickly. Some exhaust gases on board submarine cause damn near instant death.
And that's just compounded by the low availability of breathable air.
Actually, you're close. Underway (that means out to sea) subs purposefully keep their oxygen levels low - very low. So low that a cigarette will immediately extinguish when the smoker is not inhaling. It must be re-lit before each puff.
But that's not important. The important part is that whatever is attempting to catch fire would smoulder for a bit before flaming up - thereby catching the eye/ear/nose of the watch or any other passing crew member.
In port, oxygen levels are normal to the atmospheric oxygen levels of the surrounding city. (By the way, Norfolk, VA smells bad. - Norfolk sub sailors know what I'm talking about.;P )
I don't know on the hatches, I'd expect a sub to have the usual complement of watertight compartments, so as long as the fire didn't get hot enough to melt or deform bulkheads (which it may, which is why they stopped using aluminum for warship superstructure) they should have simply been able to close the doors.
Let me address this. While in dry dock, the boats have all kinds of cabling in the way preventing hatches from being closed. Forgot about that in my first post on this topic. So, no, you typically cant just walk up and close the hatch - not that you'd want to. See my previous post, above.
But maybe they had problems getting the people out first. Subs don't have too many doors on them, and if the fire is between 25 crew and the door and there's no other route, sealing off isn't an option.
I find it hard to come to a conclusion where this would become a problem. There are multiple exits in most areas that are 'dead ends'. There'd have to be a pretty messed up situation that prevented ~25 people from escaping a location without them trying the emergency route *before* the emergency route became blocked.
I know that fire in a sub is considered one of the most dangerous threats there is (every crew-member is trained in fire suppression on a sub). But since this ship was presumably unmanned and in dry dock, and presumably also still air-tight, why didn't they just close all the hatches in the effected areas and shut off the oxygen? I can't imagine a fire in such an enclosed space would last very long without incoming oxygen.
I am a former submariner.
1 - A submarine in dry dock is basically a ship on ship. A problem on one constitutes a problem on the other.
2 - There is a lot of piping throughout the boat. It contains either oxygen (@ 10's of PSI) or hydraulic fluid (@ thousands of PSI). If the piping burst, its source is a giant tank containing much more of the stuff in a different location of the boat. There are isolation valves, however, which may mitigate the problem for a while.
3 - There's this thing called a nuclear reactor. It's shut-down while in dry-dock but still requires power to keep it safe.
4 - Separating the reactor and the forward compartment is a giant tank containing thousands of gallons of diesel fuel oil. If it over heats, well, yeah, kiss your asses goodbye.
5 - There's a HUGE battery on the boat for when the boat needs to run off of battery power. It contains an enormous amount of energy - so much so that if it caught fire and exploded, the sub, the dry-dock and the facilities surrounding it would be damn near vaporised. I think anything within a few miles would *easily* have its windows blown out if not flattened.
6 - If the reactor has a problem, you'll basically have Fukushima on your hands.
7 - Submarine fires (when the get large enough) dont stay a single class of fire for long. There is too much hydraulic fluid, electrical line and combustible materials for it to remain one class of fire for long - ergo, one can not simply spray water (seawater, btw) to extinguish it.
So, no. Shuttering the place up and trying to starve the fire isn't exactly a proactive manner to extinguish a fire.
Throw in skeleton crews (most systems shut down), lots of welding, oil and whatnot all over the deck and you have a recipe for disaster on your hands. I'm surprised there arn't more fires of this magnitude more often.
More questions? Guess I'll read below and answer some there, too.
This has to stop, as it's happening across the program spectrum. I blame the influence of smartphones and similar touch oriented devices.Speaking as someone who has never owed a smart phone I have always found them restrictive and confusing. Using one is like navigating a theme park without a map. Eventually you'll want to just find a place to sit down but you'll only get more lost among the theme rides and hot dog stands.
emphasis mine
Welcome to Web 3.0. They're banking on it. The future is turning your computer into a money making machine for them. Google's doing it by turning your page views into dollars from advertisers. Other corporations are hoping you'll use their software, they'll peek and poke around your habits, churn information that is useful to them in the hopes that they can get you to stick around and give your money to them.
The Hot Dog stands and amusement rides of today are applications like Angry Birds and such. You think the web of 1997-2000 was ad-ridden? Wait until your OS is! Apple is working on one now (or at the least, it considering it!).
Reminds me of that song, "99 instances of bugs in the code..."
99 instances of bugs in the code... 99 instances of bugs,.... code one out, mark it out, 106 instances of bugs in the code... 106 instances of bugs in the code... 106 instances of bugs,....
I guess you completely ignored the fact that the poster mentioned that police ignore most of the ADT service calls because of false alarms. You didn't even have to RTFA; It's in the summary.
Slashdot Mirror
At 46 cents(USD) (source: https://www.usps.com/business/prices.htm) per stamp just how many letters (stamps) we talking to reverse a $14.64 (61 cent * 24 months) charge? Looks like the crossover is at 32 stamps (.46*32=$14.74)(USD).
Basically, if you make minimum wage (or somewhat over minimum wage) its worth your time to fight it. If you make substantially more, just what are you willing to volunteer to 'free the world' from their tyranny.
Is what they are doing right and proper? Probably not.
Is there much you can do about it? Again, probably not.
What's the solution then? Inundate your state's Attorney General's office with complaints. One .46 cent letter (per person) * 10000 complaints will get his attention. Contact your Congress critter, too. Then the local news stations.
OCCUPY ATT!
(Sorry, that was silly of me.)
And I'm sorry I have MOD points; but, wont give them to you today. I felt saying, "Thank you," directly to you was more important to me today. You brought a smile, a tear, and some humanity to /. today.
Thank you.
or,
50 states? 1 GW each? Stupid summary. Now I'll never know!
Very creepy, and really, in a couple of cases violating HIPPA[sic] regulations through their disclosure of who-knows-whom.
I assume you mean HIPAA? How is LinkedIn bound by being HIPAA compliant?
http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/srsummary.html
The only privacy agreement they are under is the one you (and millions of others) signed up for AND agreed to.
I truly hope you are not shocked to hear this; but, they sell your information by data mining the heck out of it and categorizing you (and millions of others) into nice little packages of "Would probably buy" product X. Advertisers stumble over themselves attempting to get your eyeballs (and millions of others) into looking at their advert so you (and millions of others) have a chance to buy their product or service(s).
Do you use Google? Their whole business model is to sell profiles to advertisers. Bing, Yahoo!, AskJeeves, and SLASHDOT, too.
I do feel your pain, though.
No, No, NO! We're WAY smarter than that. We've got them *thinking* we're going to use RC. What we're *really* doing is Control-Line flying.
Here's video of the test pilots IN ACTION!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfF-CHzT408&feature=player_detailpage#t=52s
HAHAHA! They'll never see it coming!
Pilots rule.
The system is probably running Linux. It takes a while to become ready after the power switch is turned on, which is typical of Linux. A smaller RTOS would likely come up much faster. The fact that the device requires networking, and streaming of sound and video also lends itself to a Linux system. Linux already includes much of the software to make everything work. The size of the RAM and Flash suggest a lean, but very workable Linux based system.
Emphasis mine. Really? I've found my Linux installs to be very fast booting - certainly faster than Windows machines. Also, according to your pics there is an 80MHz crystal on there - any modern day OS you threw on that loaded from some external storage cluster would take a while to load. However, I didn't see any SD Card, SSDs or other external media device with which to hold a larger OS which means it's all embedded in one of those IC chips you couldn't find any information on.
Having said that, there are version of Linux which can fit on a single floppy drive - about 1.2Megabytes - and in this case the OS has been burned into one of the ICs. Point here is that it may not even be Linux.
Seriously? "US Refuses To Sign ITU Treaty Over Internet Provisions" is the title of this piece?
From what I could tell, even TFSummary mentions multiple countries refuse to sign. But, "OMG! Teh Un1t3d 5t4t3s refusors to p3n h4x moar documents! Roooaarrr!!1"
A more sensationalist title I've not seen on /. for a while.
How about a more neutral tone for story summaries? Maybe, I don't know:
Multiple countries fail to agree on ITU Treaty
Multiple countries disagree on ITU Treaty content
Differences still exist between countries involved in ITU Treaty
ITU Treaty content to undergo more revisions
sheesh.
Dear god this must be a slow news day - I have never seen such a blatant slashvertisment in all the time I have wasted here.
Obligatory you must be new here.
Don't forget to introduce him to this!
1) Have slow news day
2) Post slashvertisement
3) {{eyeballs}}
4) PROFIT!!
p.s: Did I screw up? Opps, I forgot to use '????' on step 3. Now our secrets out! My bad!
Also he was in the Navy so I think it would made him a little proud.
Not knowing the man; but, hearing just how humble he was, I'd think he'd be even more humble after this. Proud? No.
Just my 2 cents.
"Does it come in a one handed version?"
Wait. What? Gah!!!
What do you expect? This end of the Western spiral arm is somewhat unfashionable.
What do I expect?
What do I *expect*!?
I *expect* a freaking restaurant!!
apt-get? LUXURY! Us Slackware users use tar -zxf && ./configure && make install!
Command length != penis length
whoa! Whoa! WHOA!
What font size are we talking here?
Certainly the collection of the data should have never happened. However, instead of punishing the ISP, Anonymous is punishing the people who's data was copied from the ISP by publishing it to 'teh interwebs'. The ISP isn't going to be held accountable if someone (AKA: a criminal) uses this information to steal identities.
Here's the crux. Let's say that the stolen data isn't used by a criminal organisation for 5, 10 or more years. Enough of it will still be valid for identity thieves to use 10 years from now. Companies usually only pay for about 2 years of identity protection after a data breach like this. (Which is another problem, I agree!) That being said... Good job, Anonymous! You effectively made more than a few victims to your childish antics which will negatively effect these peoples lives for years to come.
So. Who did Anonymous victimize again? The ISP or ump-teen thousand innocent people?
I'll end this by discussion by filling in the typical idealistic response now. "But,...but,...those people shouldn't allow their data to be retained and shouldn't be doing business with that ISP."
As if they had a choice. By the ISP, by the government, or by Anonymous.
His lessons are too slow. It's like getting a lesson from Grandpa Simpson. He only teaches one tiny basic concept per video and it takes him at least five minutes to get there and another five repeating, and repeating, and repeating. I can't watch more than half a video before I can't take it anymore.
Not all students can learn as quickly and easily as most /. readers.
Indeed. In fact /.ers are so smart that most of them don't even have to read an article to know all the answers!
Well, *yeah*! We *knew* that, Genius!
He's been preserved in a jar for future study.
As long as it remains upright.
Neat article you linked to there. Here's how it read to me.
TERRY GROSS: Right. So you know, you write that in Dubai they don't have, like, a sewage infrastructure to support high-rises like this one. So what do they do with the sewage?
KATE ASCHER: A variety of buildings there, some can access a municipal system but many of them actually use trucks to take the sewage out of individual buildings and then they wait on a queue to put it into a waste water treatment plant. So it's a fairly primitive system.
GROSS!
ASCHER: That's right. I'm told they can wait up to 24 hours before they get to the head of the queue. Now, there is a municipal system that is being invested in and I assume will connect all of these tall buildings in some point in the near future, but they're certainly not alone. In India many buildings are responsible for providing their own water and their own waste water removal.
So it's, it's really – we're very fortunate in this country that we assume we can plug into an urban system that can handle whatever waste the building produces. That's not the case everywhere else in the world.
GROSS!
ASCHER: Right. Well, you know, you have to remember that a place like Dubai really emerged in the last 50 years. It was a sleepy, you know, Bedouin town half a century ago. And what you do is when you bring in the world's, you know, most sophisticated architects and engineers, you can literally build anything, including a building of 140 or 150 stories. But designing a municipal network of sewage treatment is in some ways more complex.
It certainly requires more money and more time to make it happen, so one just seemed to jump ahead of the other.
The trip Columbus took was ultimately to find a cheaper way to India. The fact that he found a new world was merely a coincidence, and actually meant a failure of the original mission.
Really? You're saying Columbus failed? Knowing what we know today about the shape of the world - which peoples of his time most certainly did not - can you really sit there and say he failed? He never had a chance! When someone is set up to fail, whether the participants know it or not, can you call it a failure? IMHO, I think not. Tragedy, maybe, but not failure - especially when so much more was learned about the world and set about events that altered the lives of damn near half the planet.
The investors that financed Columbus' trip were in it to make more money.
In the old days, government attitudes had swung perhaps to the other side: they completely ignored risks and were quite reckless at times. Good for exploration, bad for the health of people.
It might be interesting to add that a large portion of the explorations was (co-)funded by companies. The East India Company (both the Dutch and the English one) were companies, and were not owned by the crown or government.
It's also interesting that Spain offered Columbus 10% of any trade proceeds he gained from his trip. He was never paid.
And that's just compounded by the low availability of breathable air.
Actually, you're close. Underway (that means out to sea) subs purposefully keep their oxygen levels low - very low. So low that a cigarette will immediately extinguish when the smoker is not inhaling. It must be re-lit before each puff.
But that's not important. The important part is that whatever is attempting to catch fire would smoulder for a bit before flaming up - thereby catching the eye/ear/nose of the watch or any other passing crew member.
In port, oxygen levels are normal to the atmospheric oxygen levels of the surrounding city. (By the way, Norfolk, VA smells bad. - Norfolk sub sailors know what I'm talking about. ;P )
This is not correct. Actually the atmosphere in the boat while underway is 19-21% oxygen. Atmospheric oxygen levels are around 20% worldwide. The atmosphere on the ship is no different in any way from the atmosphere that you are currently in most likely (gas wise). What IS different is the pressure which changes with the depth the ship is at, the amount of time since the ship has "equalized pressure" by putting the exaust mast up, and the amount of people on the ship (you all breathe out more than you breathe in).
And this is where *your* boat took chances. Our boat kept the oxygen levels at about 13% to 15%. Yes, you read that correctly. Again, the smokers had to inhale *deeply* while attempting to light their cigarettes so they could create enough air-draw across the surface of their *lighters* to get the lighter to even light so they could light their cigarette. Low oxygen levels starve fires.
You say you've been in 3 fires and they were extinguished within 10 minutes? I'm very glad you did. However, wow. Amazing. How many captains did your boat(s) go through? While we had our own scares we only had 1 real fire on board while underway and it was nothing more than a smoking rag. Someone left it on top of the CO2 Candle where it began to smoke. It was amazing. I was one of the few who showed up in an EAB. Three guys showed up in their skivvies. People were on it *instantly*.
The only other time we had a near miss (and the scariest moment of my life, hands down) was when our 4500lbs Hydraulic line ruptured in the engine room. It was spraying 4500lbs PSI hydraulic fluid into the engine room. If the roving watch underway hadn't been standing *right* next to the kill switch when it ruptured I might not be here today. We surfaced and remained surfaced for 3 days drawing circles on nav charts in sea state 3 to sea state 4 seas. If the oxygen levels were any higher AND (I stress AND) the fluid would have sprayed at 4500psi for more than 30 seconds, it would have been a flame-thrower.
It's purely up to the CO on what level of O2 he wants the boat to run around at. Maybe they've enacted some regulation since I got out in late 1996; but, don't sit there and say I'm not correct. Certainly, in port the ship's O2 levels are in keeping with the surround local atmosphere - ~20%. Our boat kept O2 levels low purposefully under-weigh.
But maybe they had problems getting the people out first. Subs don't have too many doors on them, and if the fire is between 25 crew and the door and there's no other route, sealing off isn't an option.
I find it hard to come to a conclusion where this would become a problem. There are multiple exits in most areas that are 'dead ends'. There'd have to be a pretty messed up situation that prevented ~25 people from escaping a location without them trying the emergency route *before* the emergency route became blocked.
Okay so oddly enough there isnt really an "emergency route" on the ship for reasons that I wont detail here (it would take too long to explain). I do have to say that there are contingency plans in place for this kind of thing un
is uncomfortably spinning in his grave...
IAAFS.
Uh, no, he isn't. He's sitting high and mighty and it's because of his insight and dedication to his craft that the fire's threat to the reactor was minimal.
What are you? 12?
yep, fire is usually considered the #1 hazard aboard space ships and subs. Simply because the first thing you normally do when there's a fire is evacuate, something that's not such an easy option for them.
Evacuating ship is *not* the first thing submariners do. They attack fires with a vengeance. One, it's stealing our oxygen. Two, it's polluting our oxygen supply with *deadly* gases. Three, it can kill you fairly quickly. Some exhaust gases on board submarine cause damn near instant death.
And that's just compounded by the low availability of breathable air.
Actually, you're close. Underway (that means out to sea) subs purposefully keep their oxygen levels low - very low. So low that a cigarette will immediately extinguish when the smoker is not inhaling. It must be re-lit before each puff.
But that's not important. The important part is that whatever is attempting to catch fire would smoulder for a bit before flaming up - thereby catching the eye/ear/nose of the watch or any other passing crew member.
In port, oxygen levels are normal to the atmospheric oxygen levels of the surrounding city. (By the way, Norfolk, VA smells bad. - Norfolk sub sailors know what I'm talking about. ;P )
I don't know on the hatches, I'd expect a sub to have the usual complement of watertight compartments, so as long as the fire didn't get hot enough to melt or deform bulkheads (which it may, which is why they stopped using aluminum for warship superstructure) they should have simply been able to close the doors.
Let me address this. While in dry dock, the boats have all kinds of cabling in the way preventing hatches from being closed. Forgot about that in my first post on this topic. So, no, you typically cant just walk up and close the hatch - not that you'd want to. See my previous post, above.
But maybe they had problems getting the people out first. Subs don't have too many doors on them, and if the fire is between 25 crew and the door and there's no other route, sealing off isn't an option.
I find it hard to come to a conclusion where this would become a problem. There are multiple exits in most areas that are 'dead ends'. There'd have to be a pretty messed up situation that prevented ~25 people from escaping a location without them trying the emergency route *before* the emergency route became blocked.
Pardon my ignorance here. But I have a question.
I know that fire in a sub is considered one of the most dangerous threats there is (every crew-member is trained in fire suppression on a sub). But since this ship was presumably unmanned and in dry dock, and presumably also still air-tight, why didn't they just close all the hatches in the effected areas and shut off the oxygen? I can't imagine a fire in such an enclosed space would last very long without incoming oxygen.
I am a former submariner.
1 - A submarine in dry dock is basically a ship on ship. A problem on one constitutes a problem on the other.
2 - There is a lot of piping throughout the boat. It contains either oxygen (@ 10's of PSI) or hydraulic fluid (@ thousands of PSI). If the piping burst, its source is a giant tank containing much more of the stuff in a different location of the boat. There are isolation valves, however, which may mitigate the problem for a while.
3 - There's this thing called a nuclear reactor. It's shut-down while in dry-dock but still requires power to keep it safe.
4 - Separating the reactor and the forward compartment is a giant tank containing thousands of gallons of diesel fuel oil. If it over heats, well, yeah, kiss your asses goodbye.
5 - There's a HUGE battery on the boat for when the boat needs to run off of battery power. It contains an enormous amount of energy - so much so that if it caught fire and exploded, the sub, the dry-dock and the facilities surrounding it would be damn near vaporised. I think anything within a few miles would *easily* have its windows blown out if not flattened.
6 - If the reactor has a problem, you'll basically have Fukushima on your hands.
7 - Submarine fires (when the get large enough) dont stay a single class of fire for long. There is too much hydraulic fluid, electrical line and combustible materials for it to remain one class of fire for long - ergo, one can not simply spray water (seawater, btw) to extinguish it.
So, no. Shuttering the place up and trying to starve the fire isn't exactly a proactive manner to extinguish a fire.
Throw in skeleton crews (most systems shut down), lots of welding, oil and whatnot all over the deck and you have a recipe for disaster on your hands. I'm surprised there arn't more fires of this magnitude more often.
More questions? Guess I'll read below and answer some there, too.
This has to stop, as it's happening across the program spectrum. I blame the influence of smartphones and similar touch oriented devices.Speaking as someone who has never owed a smart phone I have always found them restrictive and confusing. Using one is like navigating a theme park without a map. Eventually you'll want to just find a place to sit down but you'll only get more lost among the theme rides and hot dog stands.
emphasis mine
Welcome to Web 3.0. They're banking on it. The future is turning your computer into a money making machine for them. Google's doing it by turning your page views into dollars from advertisers. Other corporations are hoping you'll use their software, they'll peek and poke around your habits, churn information that is useful to them in the hopes that they can get you to stick around and give your money to them.
The Hot Dog stands and amusement rides of today are applications like Angry Birds and such. You think the web of 1997-2000 was ad-ridden? Wait until your OS is! Apple is working on one now (or at the least, it considering it!).
heh.
Reminds me of that song, "99 instances of bugs in the code..."
99 instances of bugs in the code... .... ....
99 instances of bugs,
code one out, mark it out,
106 instances of bugs in the code...
106 instances of bugs in the code...
106 instances of bugs,
Now *THAT's* intelligent design!
$Ducks
I guess you completely ignored the fact that the poster mentioned that police ignore most of the ADT service calls because of false alarms. You didn't even have to RTFA; It's in the summary.
Don't be such a tightwad. Get an edukation.