cruise ships

John Larkin

unread,

Jan 14, 2012, 5:19:27 PM1/14/12

to

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/14/world/europe/italy-cruise-deaths/index.html

What is with cruise ships? They are always having epidemics, power
failures, fires, food poisoning, and sinking.

I've only been on one, the QE2 from New York to France. I wanted to
visit the engine room, which is usually allowed, except that they'd
just had a big fire. The trip took 5 days because one boiler was still
out.

John

Bill Sloman

unread,

Jan 14, 2012, 5:54:49 PM1/14/12

to

On Jan 14, 11:19 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/14/world/europe/italy-cruise-deaths/index....

>
> What is with cruise ships? They are always having epidemics, power
> failures, fires, food poisoning, and sinking.
>
> I've only been on one, the QE2 from New York to France. I wanted to
> visit the engine room, which is usually allowed, except that they'd
> just had a big fire. The trip took 5 days because one boiler was still
> out.

There do seem to be quite a few of them around, and they are built and
run by fallible human beings, so they break from time to time.

At least they don't have nuclear reactors on board.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Artemus

unread,

Jan 14, 2012, 6:10:24 PM1/14/12

to

"John Larkin" <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:6jv3h7hjjdlbljq1a...@4ax.com...

WTH?? I thought Andy Rooney died a couple of months ago.
Art

Jim Thompson

unread,

Jan 14, 2012, 6:13:36 PM1/14/12

to

John Larkin

unread,

Jan 14, 2012, 6:35:18 PM1/14/12

to

On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 15:10:24 -0800, "Artemus" <bo...@invalid.org>
wrote:

Well, it is sort of amazing that, with radar and GPS and sonar depth
sounders and computers and stuff, a crew would manage to run a ship
this big onto the rocks in clear, fair weather.

It's like the Airbus that crashed over the South Atlantic; automated
and computerized to the hilt, engines running fine, and the crew
stalled it all the way into the sea.

John

Jim Thompson

unread,

Jan 14, 2012, 6:58:11 PM1/14/12

to

Maybe a "brat" running the ship ;-)

John Larkin

unread,

Jan 14, 2012, 7:09:18 PM1/14/12

to

Is that all you can do, keep making those same stupid noises?

What a moron.

John

Jim Thompson

unread,

Jan 14, 2012, 7:12:11 PM1/14/12

to

On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 16:09:18 -0800, John Larkin

Platitudes, platitudes, but as long as your name is in lights, the
manic-depressive persona is satisfied ?:-)

Pueblo Dancer

unread,

Jan 14, 2012, 7:37:19 PM1/14/12

to

If they did, they would be in hardened containment. Not quite as hard
or thick as your skull, however.

Rich Webb

unread,

Jan 14, 2012, 7:38:19 PM1/14/12

to

On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 15:35:18 -0800, John Larkin
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 15:10:24 -0800, "Artemus" <bo...@invalid.org>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"John Larkin" <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
>>news:6jv3h7hjjdlbljq1a...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/14/world/europe/italy-cruise-deaths/index.html
>>>
>>>
>>> What is with cruise ships? They are always having epidemics, power
>>> failures, fires, food poisoning, and sinking.
>>>
>>> I've only been on one, the QE2 from New York to France. I wanted to
>>> visit the engine room, which is usually allowed, except that they'd
>>> just had a big fire. The trip took 5 days because one boiler was still
>>> out.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>WTH?? I thought Andy Rooney died a couple of months ago.
>>Art
>>
>
>Well, it is sort of amazing that, with radar and GPS and sonar depth
>sounders and computers and stuff, a crew would manage to run a ship
>this big onto the rocks in clear, fair weather.

"The ship was 2.5 miles off route when it struck a rocky sandbar,
according to the Italian Coast Guard" probably accounts for the
grounding. Too early to say why; perhaps they were running late and cut
across a dogleg. Unfortunately, not all areas are equally well charted
and once off their normal track, they were taking quite a chance.

The usual cause is a chain of dumbshit actions where multiple players
had a chance to say "Hey, wait a minute, this doesn't look right!" or,
worse, somebody does speak up and gets brushed off.

--
Rich Webb Norfolk, VA

Dave Platt

unread,

Jan 14, 2012, 7:47:57 PM1/14/12

to

In article <6144h7hfcop02no7n...@4ax.com>,

John Larkin <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

>Well, it is sort of amazing that, with radar and GPS and sonar depth
>sounders and computers and stuff, a crew would manage to run a ship
>this big onto the rocks in clear, fair weather.

This does sound as if somebody messed up pretty badly.

>It's like the Airbus that crashed over the South Atlantic; automated
>and computerized to the hilt, engines running fine, and the crew
>stalled it all the way into the sea.

In the case of the Airbus, I believe that the leading theory is that
the crew flew the plane into some pretty severe weather conditions,
and the pitot tubes iced up. This caused the airspeed sensing system
to go completely haywire, and the crew probably had no way of knowing
what the plane's true airspeed was. Hence, Garbage In, Garbage Out.

IIRC, there's actually a pretty narrow set of flight conditions which
work, when you're flying as high and fast as those planes do... both
airspeed and pitch need to be quite tightly controlled in order to
maintain a flat-and-level flight.

--
Dave Platt <dpl...@radagast.org> AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

lang...@fonz.dk

unread,

Jan 14, 2012, 7:48:59 PM1/14/12

to

On 14 Jan., 23:19, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/14/world/europe/italy-cruise-deaths/index....
>

> What is with cruise ships? They are always having epidemics, power
> failures, fires, food poisoning, and sinking.
>
> I've only been on one, the QE2 from New York to France. I wanted to
> visit the engine room, which is usually allowed, except that they'd
> just had a big fire. The trip took 5 days because one boiler was still
> out.
>
> John

must have been a long long time ago, I was still in school when they
switched to diesel

-Lasse

Dave Platt

unread,

Jan 14, 2012, 7:50:41 PM1/14/12

to

In article <8v54h791o2746ot35...@4ax.com>,

Rich Webb <bbe...@mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote:

>The usual cause is a chain of dumbshit actions where multiple players
>had a chance to say "Hey, wait a minute, this doesn't look right!" or,
>worse, somebody does speak up and gets brushed off.

That was one of the hard lessons learned from the Canary Island plane
crash some years ago. Having one officer in absolute command of a
vessel ("He's the boss, he's the expert, he *must* know what he's
doing) can get you into trouble, if the other ("subordinate") officers
do not feel comfortable in questioning what they believe is a wrong
action.

Fred Bloggs

unread,

Jan 14, 2012, 8:12:45 PM1/14/12

to

On Jan 14, 7:38 pm, Rich Webb <bbew...@mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 15:35:18 -0800, John Larkin
>
>
>
>
>
> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> >On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 15:10:24 -0800, "Artemus" <bo...@invalid.org>
> >wrote:
>

> >>"John Larkin" <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
> >>news:6jv3h7hjjdlbljq1a...@4ax.com...
>
> >>>http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/14/world/europe/italy-cruise-deaths/index....

>
> >>> What is with cruise ships? They are always having epidemics, power
> >>> failures, fires, food poisoning, and sinking.
>
> >>> I've only been on one, the QE2 from New York to France. I wanted to
> >>> visit the engine room, which is usually allowed, except that they'd
> >>> just had a big fire. The trip took 5 days because one boiler was still
> >>> out.
>
> >>> John
>
> >>WTH?? I thought Andy Rooney died a couple of months ago.
> >>Art
>
> >Well, it is sort of amazing that, with radar and GPS and sonar depth
> >sounders and computers and stuff, a crew would manage to run a ship
> >this big onto the rocks in clear, fair weather.
>
> "The ship was 2.5 miles off route when it struck a rocky sandbar,
> according to the Italian Coast Guard" probably accounts for the
> grounding. Too early to say why; perhaps they were running late and cut
> across a dogleg. Unfortunately, not all areas are equally well charted
> and once off their normal track, they were taking quite a chance.
>
> The usual cause is a chain of dumbshit actions where multiple players
> had a chance to say "Hey, wait a minute, this doesn't look right!" or,
> worse, somebody does speak up and gets brushed off.
>
> --

> Rich Webb Norfolk, VA- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The captain said he had been over that route many times before, close
to the island so passengers could take pictures... and where the ship
ended up is not where it struck the rocks, they maneuvered the ship to
its present location after the collision. As you can see he damned
near beached it, the water isn't waist deep there, and all this
hysteria about reliving the Titanic is kinda sad...

John Larkin

unread,

Jan 14, 2012, 8:15:50 PM1/14/12

to

On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 16:47:57 -0800, dpl...@radagast.org (Dave Platt)
wrote:

>In article <6144h7hfcop02no7n...@4ax.com>,
>John Larkin <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>
>>Well, it is sort of amazing that, with radar and GPS and sonar depth
>>sounders and computers and stuff, a crew would manage to run a ship
>>this big onto the rocks in clear, fair weather.
>
>This does sound as if somebody messed up pretty badly.
>
>>It's like the Airbus that crashed over the South Atlantic; automated
>>and computerized to the hilt, engines running fine, and the crew
>>stalled it all the way into the sea.
>
>In the case of the Airbus, I believe that the leading theory is that
>the crew flew the plane into some pretty severe weather conditions,
>and the pitot tubes iced up. This caused the airspeed sensing system
>to go completely haywire, and the crew probably had no way of knowing
>what the plane's true airspeed was. Hence, Garbage In, Garbage Out.
>
>IIRC, there's actually a pretty narrow set of flight conditions which
>work, when you're flying as high and fast as those planes do... both
>airspeed and pitch need to be quite tightly controlled in order to
>maintain a flat-and-level flight.

This plane doesn't have control yokes, but has independent joysticks
for the two pilots. Neither gets any tactile feedback on what the
other is doing, and the computer averages their inputs. One guy was
apparently trying to keep it level, and the other was pulling back to
the max. The average was enough to stall it. The pilots on this plane
do not have a visible angle-of-attack indicator! And, apparently,
didn't understand much about how airplanes work. They were used to the
computer flying the plane.

They flew it all the way into the sea that way, nose-up.

John

Fred Bloggs

unread,

Jan 14, 2012, 8:15:55 PM1/14/12

to

On Jan 14, 5:19 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/14/world/europe/italy-cruise-deaths/index....
>

> What is with cruise ships? They are always having epidemics, power
> failures, fires, food poisoning, and sinking.
>
> I've only been on one, the QE2 from New York to France. I wanted to
> visit the engine room, which is usually allowed, except that they'd
> just had a big fire. The trip took 5 days because one boiler was still
> out.
>
> John

Haha- didn't someone's Navy slam a nuclear submarine into a deep
outcropping at high speed not too long ago?

John Larkin

unread,

Jan 14, 2012, 8:18:01 PM1/14/12

to

Yup. Big ships are now mostly direct-drive reversing diesels. Steam is
more efficient, but it's hard to find crews that can manage the
complexity of a steam plant.

John

Bruce Varley

unread,

Jan 14, 2012, 8:25:35 PM1/14/12

to

"John Larkin" <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:6jv3h7hjjdlbljq1a...@4ax.com...
>

There's likely to be a simple explanation. The crew are as tanked up as the
passengers.

Fred Bloggs

unread,

Jan 14, 2012, 8:30:23 PM1/14/12

to

On Jan 14, 8:25 pm, "Bruce Varley" <b...@NoSpam.com> wrote:
> "John Larkin" <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6jv3h7hjjdlbljq1a...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> >http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/14/world/europe/italy-cruise-deaths/index....

>
> > What is with cruise ships? They are always having epidemics, power
> > failures, fires, food poisoning, and sinking.
>
> > I've only been on one, the QE2 from New York to France. I wanted to
> > visit the engine room, which is usually allowed, except that they'd
> > just had a big fire. The trip took 5 days because one boiler was still
> > out.
>
> > John
>
> There's likely to be a simple explanation. The crew are as tanked up as the
> passengers.

It was just 6PM their time when they crashed.

Phil Allison

unread,

Jan 14, 2012, 8:31:05 PM1/14/12

to

"Dave Platt"

> In the case of the Airbus, I believe that the leading theory is that
> the crew flew the plane into some pretty severe weather conditions,
> and the pitot tubes iced up. This caused the airspeed sensing system
> to go completely haywire, and the crew probably had no way of knowing
> what the plane's true airspeed was. Hence, Garbage In, Garbage Out.
>
> IIRC, there's actually a pretty narrow set of flight conditions which
> work, when you're flying as high and fast as those planes do... both
> airspeed and pitch need to be quite tightly controlled in order to
> maintain a flat-and-level flight.

** Commercial jet pilots have commented that at high altitude, a throttle
setting of 85% and a nose up attitude of about 4 degrees will result in
level flight. The A330s throttles and artificial horizon indicator were
working fine so doing this was possible.

Seems the three pilots involved did not trust ANY of their instruments and
had lost " situational awareness " - that is until the plane went splash.

... Phil

Fred Bloggs

unread,

Jan 14, 2012, 8:33:09 PM1/14/12

to

On Jan 14, 8:18 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 16:48:59 -0800 (PST), "langw...@fonz.dk"

> John- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

This ship was diesel-electric, when they lose power, they lose
maneuverability.

Bill Sloman

unread,

Jan 14, 2012, 8:41:32 PM1/14/12

to

AlwayWrong with yet another nym.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Fred Bloggs

unread,

Jan 14, 2012, 8:28:19 PM1/14/12

to

On Jan 14, 8:18 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 16:48:59 -0800 (PST), "langw...@fonz.dk"

> John- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

This ship was diesel-electric.

lang...@fonz.dk

unread,

Jan 14, 2012, 9:01:10 PM1/14/12

to

On 15 Jan., 02:18, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 16:48:59 -0800 (PST), "langw...@fonz.dk"

just looked it up, QE2 is diesel electric and when they put the
diesels
in they were much more efficient than the steam they replaced

Diesel can be very efficient, doubt steam is much better in ship sized
packages, if it were why put diesel on a monster like Emma Maersk?
it burns something like 1 million barrels of oil a year

-Lasse

Bruce Varley

unread,

Jan 14, 2012, 9:09:14 PM1/14/12

to

<lang...@fonz.dk> wrote in message
news:21085884-867d-4dae...@o9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

In order to get the sort of efficiency you can get from a large diesel, a
steam plant has to be *big*, with a lot of heat recovery stuff hanging off
it. The plants that cite efficiencies of 40+% are in the many hundreds of
megawatt class, sometimes running at supercritical pressures.

There are also maintenance advantages with recip engines, boiler turnrounds
are trouble enough on the surface where you can get vehicle access right up
to them, doing it in the guts of a ship would be a big deal.

asdf

unread,

Jan 14, 2012, 9:31:15 PM1/14/12

to

On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 14:19:27 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

> http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/14/world/europe/italy-cruise-deaths/

index.html
>
>
> What is with cruise ships? They are always having epidemics, power
> failures, fires, food poisoning, and sinking.
>

I've been dozen times fishing and scuba diving at that island and the
ship in the photo is definitely too close and too big to avoid some well
known rocks.
Either the captain and crew were high or drunk, or they're totally
incompetent idiots.

John Larkin

unread,

Jan 14, 2012, 10:11:23 PM1/14/12

to

On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 10:09:14 +0800, "Bruce Varley" <b...@NoSpam.com>
wrote:

Yup, superheaters and economizers and auxiliaries and monster
condensers and stuff. Very complex. But they burn Bunker C, which is
about like highway asphalt, not even liquid at room temperature. Reeks
of sulfur, too.

John

Martin Riddle

unread,

Jan 15, 2012, 12:32:45 AM1/15/12

to

"John Larkin" <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in

message news:6144h7hfcop02no7n...@4ax.com...

One picture showed it up against rocks next to a Lighthouse no less ;)

Cheers

My Name Is Tzu How Do You Do

unread,

Jan 15, 2012, 2:14:38 AM1/15/12

to

On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 17:18:01 -0800, John Larkin
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

>Yup. Big ships are now mostly direct-drive reversing diesels. Steam is
>more efficient, but it's hard to find crews that can manage the
>complexity of a steam plant.
>
>John
>

Not easy to route steam to modern azipod drive systems as well.

My Name Is Tzu How Do You Do

unread,

Jan 15, 2012, 2:15:42 AM1/15/12

to

Yes . Te new ones have azipods, and that makes it hard not to use
electric.

PeterD

unread,

Jan 15, 2012, 8:20:15 AM1/15/12

to

On 1/14/2012 5:19 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/14/world/europe/italy-cruise-deaths/index.html

>
>
> What is with cruise ships? They are always having epidemics, power
> failures, fires, food poisoning, and sinking.
>
> I've only been on one, the QE2 from New York to France. I wanted to
> visit the engine room, which is usually allowed, except that they'd
> just had a big fire. The trip took 5 days because one boiler was still
> out.
>
> John
>

Message from Captain to Owners: "Been a slight problem with the cruise,
but that island was moving at 20 Knots, I swear!"

At least the Titanic hit a moving ice-burg, hell, this guy managed to
run up on a rock that has been there for thousands of years, and is well
known! WTF?

--
I'm never going to grow up.

YD

unread,

Jan 15, 2012, 8:35:30 AM1/15/12

to

Late at night, by candle light, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> penned this
immortal opus:

>On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 15:35:18 -0800, John Larkin

><jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 15:10:24 -0800, "Artemus" <bo...@invalid.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"John Larkin" <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
>>>news:6jv3h7hjjdlbljq1a...@4ax.com...
>>>>

>>>> http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/14/world/europe/italy-cruise-deaths/index.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What is with cruise ships? They are always having epidemics, power
>>>> failures, fires, food poisoning, and sinking.
>>>>
>>>> I've only been on one, the QE2 from New York to France. I wanted to
>>>> visit the engine room, which is usually allowed, except that they'd
>>>> just had a big fire. The trip took 5 days because one boiler was still
>>>> out.
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>

>>>WTH?? I thought Andy Rooney died a couple of months ago.
>>>Art
>>>
>>
>>Well, it is sort of amazing that, with radar and GPS and sonar depth
>>sounders and computers and stuff, a crew would manage to run a ship
>>this big onto the rocks in clear, fair weather.
>>
>>It's like the Airbus that crashed over the South Atlantic; automated
>>and computerized to the hilt, engines running fine, and the crew
>>stalled it all the way into the sea.
>>
>>John
>

>Maybe a "brat" running the ship ;-)
>
>Flail away, Schadenfreude, Schadenfreude, Schadenfreude... dork, dork,
>dork :-)
>
> ...Jim Thompson

Good grief, what a dotard. Now in stalking mode to boot. Sad to see a
formerly fine mind going to hell in a hand basket.

- YD.
--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.

mpm

unread,

Jan 15, 2012, 9:01:24 AM1/15/12

to

On Jan 15, 12:32 am, "Martin Riddle" <martin_...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "John Larkin" <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in

> messagenews:6144h7hfcop02no7n...@4ax.com...

>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 15:10:24 -0800, "Artemus" <bo...@invalid.org>
> > wrote:
>

> >>"John Larkin" <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
> >>message
> >>news:6jv3h7hjjdlbljq1a...@4ax.com...
>
> >>>http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/14/world/europe/italy-cruise-deaths/index....

>
> >>> What is with cruise ships? They are always having epidemics, power
> >>> failures, fires, food poisoning, and sinking.
>
> >>> I've only been on one, the QE2 from New York to France. I wanted to
> >>> visit the engine room, which is usually allowed, except that they'd
> >>> just had a big fire. The trip took 5 days because one boiler was
> >>> still
> >>> out.
>
> >>> John
>
> >>WTH?? I thought Andy Rooney died a couple of months ago.
> >>Art
>
> > Well, it is sort of amazing that, with radar and GPS and sonar depth
> > sounders and computers and stuff, a crew would manage to run a ship
> > this big onto the rocks in clear, fair weather.
>
> > It's like the Airbus that crashed over the South Atlantic; automated
> > and computerized to the hilt, engines running fine, and the crew
> > stalled it all the way into the sea.
>
> > John
>
> One picture showed it up against rocks next to a Lighthouse no less ;)
>

> Cheers- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Maybe they could stop the rotation of the lighthouse lamp to assist in
the search for survivors?
Assuming of course that it rotates. I've seen some that are just
strobe lights.

I'm trying to avoid jumping to conclusions as to what may have
happened here.
One would think that job is a huge responsibility, and not taken
lightly.
Also, a complex system overall, and we all know those sometimes fail
in stupid catastrophic ways -- easily recognized in hindsight.

Personally, I don't even like cruises.
If I'm going to travel half-way around the world, I want to spend time
in each place (port) on my own schedule - not tied to the boat's
schedule.

Martin Riddle

unread,

Jan 15, 2012, 9:15:35 AM1/15/12

to

"PeterD" <pet...@hipson.net> wrote in message
news:jeujqd$9b7$2...@speranza.aioe.org...

It looks like the Rock is still embedded in the Hull.

Cheers

Notably Stationed

unread,

Jan 15, 2012, 9:20:27 AM1/15/12

to

Someone will find a way to blame it on weed.

John Larkin

unread,

Jan 15, 2012, 12:09:18 PM1/15/12

to

I think there were some big steam-electric ships, aircraft carriers if
I recall.

John

Rich Webb

unread,

Jan 15, 2012, 12:36:58 PM1/15/12

to

On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 06:01:24 -0800 (PST), mpm <mpmi...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Jan 15, 12:32 am, "Martin Riddle" <martin_...@verizon.net> wrote:

>> One picture showed it up against rocks next to a Lighthouse no less ;)
>>
>> Cheers- Hide quoted text -
>

>Maybe they could stop the rotation of the lighthouse lamp to assist in
>the search for survivors?
>Assuming of course that it rotates. I've seen some that are just
>strobe lights.
>
>I'm trying to avoid jumping to conclusions as to what may have
>happened here.
>One would think that job is a huge responsibility, and not taken
>lightly.
>Also, a complex system overall, and we all know those sometimes fail
>in stupid catastrophic ways -- easily recognized in hindsight.

Reports seem to indicate that they first touched bottom to the SE of the
port of Giglio on a northbound track just east of Isola del Giglio. They
were well past (N of) the harbor entrance when they decided that things
were bad enough that they had to pull in and attempted a hard turn to
port. My guess is that they'd taken on enough water by this time that
the free surface effect took over (physics always wins) and the turn
caused them to heel over to stbd uncontrollably.

The pictures are where it ended up, off a point north of the harbor
entrance. The hull tear seen on the port quarter was on the landward
side.

--
Rich Webb Norfolk, VA

Jamie

unread,

Jan 15, 2012, 4:14:55 PM1/15/12

to

Pueblo Dancer wrote:

> On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 14:54:49 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>
>
>>On Jan 14, 11:19 pm, John Larkin
>><jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/14/world/europe/italy-cruise-deaths/index....

>>>
>>>What is with cruise ships? They are always having epidemics, power
>>>failures, fires, food poisoning, and sinking.
>>>
>>>I've only been on one, the QE2 from New York to France. I wanted to
>>>visit the engine room, which is usually allowed, except that they'd
>>>just had a big fire. The trip took 5 days because one boiler was still
>>>out.
>>

>>There do seem to be quite a few of them around, and they are built and
>>run by fallible human beings, so they break from time to time.
>>
>>At least they don't have nuclear reactors on board.
>
>
> If they did, they would be in hardened containment. Not quite as hard
> or thick as your skull, however.

I don't know about that, many things are made in China these days and
they do have tendency to cut back on material usage!

Jamie

Jamie

unread,

Jan 15, 2012, 4:17:55 PM1/15/12

to

John Larkin wrote:

> On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 15:10:24 -0800, "Artemus" <bo...@invalid.org>
> wrote:
>
>

>>"John Larkin" <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
>>news:6jv3h7hjjdlbljq1a...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/14/world/europe/italy-cruise-deaths/index.html

>>>
>>>
>>>What is with cruise ships? They are always having epidemics, power
>>>failures, fires, food poisoning, and sinking.
>>>
>>>I've only been on one, the QE2 from New York to France. I wanted to
>>>visit the engine room, which is usually allowed, except that they'd
>>>just had a big fire. The trip took 5 days because one boiler was still
>>>out.
>>>

>>>John
>>>
>>
>>WTH?? I thought Andy Rooney died a couple of months ago.
>>Art
>>
>
>
> Well, it is sort of amazing that, with radar and GPS and sonar depth
> sounders and computers and stuff, a crew would manage to run a ship
> this big onto the rocks in clear, fair weather.
>
> It's like the Airbus that crashed over the South Atlantic; automated
> and computerized to the hilt, engines running fine, and the crew
> stalled it all the way into the sea.
>
> John
>

lets see, I have a scenario. Think of GPS being over ridden with another
signal that puts the tracking slightly off.

Don't you just love those auto pilot modes via GPS.

A good way to stir up havoc world wide.

Jamie

k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz

unread,

Jan 15, 2012, 6:50:00 PM1/15/12

to

Yes, and the senior pilot was sleeping, then didn't assume command after he
was called to the flight deck. The junior officer was allowed to fly it into
the sea. Averaging the inputs is pretty silly. You'd think there'd be an
alarm if the inputs were significantly different.

Bill Sloman

unread,

Jan 15, 2012, 9:02:08 PM1/15/12

to

On Jan 15, 10:17 pm, Jamie

<jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1l...@charter.net> wrote:
> John Larkin wrote:
> > On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 15:10:24 -0800, "Artemus" <bo...@invalid.org>
> > wrote:
>

> >>"John Larkin" <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
> >>news:6jv3h7hjjdlbljq1a...@4ax.com...
>
> >>>http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/14/world/europe/italy-cruise-deaths/index....

>
> >>>What is with cruise ships? They are always having epidemics, power
> >>>failures, fires, food poisoning, and sinking.
>
> >>>I've only been on one, the QE2 from New York to France. I wanted to
> >>>visit the engine room, which is usually allowed, except that they'd
> >>>just had a big fire. The trip took 5 days because one boiler was still
> >>>out.
>
> >>>John
>
> >>WTH?? I thought Andy Rooney died a couple of months ago.
> >>Art
>
> > Well, it is sort of amazing that, with radar and GPS and sonar depth
> > sounders and computers and stuff, a crew would manage to run a ship
> > this big onto the rocks in clear, fair weather.
>
> > It's like the Airbus that crashed over the South Atlantic; automated
> > and computerized to the hilt, engines running fine, and the crew
> > stalled it all the way into the sea.
>
> > John
>
> lets see, I have a scenario. Think of GPS being over ridden with another
> signal that puts the tracking slightly off.
>
> Don't you just love those auto pilot modes via GPS.
>
> A good way to stir up havoc world wide.

GPS depends on receiving signals from at least four satellites at the
same time. Typically nine are visible, but they go around the world
twice a day, so new satellites are moving into view and others moving
out of sight all the time.

The system was developed for the armed forces, so presumably one of
the constraints on the design was that it would be difficult to spoof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Mark

unread,

Jan 15, 2012, 9:46:07 PM1/15/12

to

>
> GPS depends on receiving signals from at least four satellites at the
> same time. Typically nine are visible, but they go around the world
> twice a day, so new satellites are moving into view and others moving
> out of sight all the time.
>
> The system was developed for the armed forces, so presumably one of
> the constraints on the design was that it would be difficult to spoof.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System
>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

guess again

Mark

Winston

unread,

Jan 15, 2012, 10:47:37 PM1/15/12

to

I visited a friend in the hills nearby.
One of his neighbors has a GPS jammer set up.
Locating my friend's house was a right little
b**tard. The GPS display was telling me stuff
that was obviously Not So.

Luckily he answered the phone and gave me
directions based on what I saw out the windshield.

--Winston<-- I stepped out of the truck, removed
the engine, threw the keys in the lake
and walked half a mile before placing my call. :)

Robert Baer

unread,

Jan 16, 2012, 3:55:52 AM1/16/12

to

You dummy...a lighthouse is FOR attracting ships for the sirens to eat..

Bill Sloman

unread,

Jan 16, 2012, 5:04:17 AM1/16/12

to

It was your armed forces, so maybe they really were stupid - those who
don't know history are condemned to repeat it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Beams

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Uwe Hercksen

unread,

Jan 16, 2012, 6:03:12 AM1/16/12

to

John Larkin schrieb:

> Well, it is sort of amazing that, with radar and GPS and sonar depth
> sounders and computers and stuff, a crew would manage to run a ship
> this big onto the rocks in clear, fair weather.

Hello,

a sonar giving the depth right under the ship would not help to see a
rock needle miles away. If the cruise ship runs full speed, they can
take only a wide curve.

Bye

Uwe Hercksen

unread,

Jan 16, 2012, 6:09:49 AM1/16/12

to

Dave Platt schrieb:

> IIRC, there's actually a pretty narrow set of flight conditions which
> work, when you're flying as high and fast as those planes do... both
> airspeed and pitch need to be quite tightly controlled in order to
> maintain a flat-and-level flight.
>

Hello,

if they fly high to save fuel, the margin between the lowest possible
speed and the maximum air speed is very small. If they are slower, the
lift of the wings is to small. If they are faster, they are too close to
the sonic barrier.

Bye

Bill Sloman

unread,

Jan 16, 2012, 7:14:30 AM1/16/12

to

On Jan 16, 12:03 pm, Uwe Hercksen <herck...@mew.uni-erlangen.de>
wrote:

I would have thought that a cruise ship could have afforded side-scan
sonar - I worked on a phased array ultrasonic imaging scanner for
medical diagnostics 1976-1979 and under-sea imaging was a whole lot
easier (and already popular, even then - fishing boats used it to find
fish!).

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Pueblo Dancer

unread,

Jan 16, 2012, 7:48:32 AM1/16/12

to

Consider that once they saw their path collided with an object. it was
likely too late to make an adjustment that would be successful, since the
ship weighs hundreds of tons.

They likely were trying to steer clear, but far too late.

Rich Webb

unread,

Jan 16, 2012, 8:58:46 AM1/16/12

to

My guess would be that trying to steer clear was the proximate cause of
the grounding.

A possible scenario: Bridge is uncomfortable with their track and feels
that they may standing into danger and decide to come right. A course
change is ordered as they are approaching the Isole le Scole, a rocky
islet SE of Giglio harbor, off the port bow. The rudder swings right but
that action pushes the stern to the left where it brushes up against
submerged rocks. That's a big-ass ship and the stern is a couple of
hundred meters aft of the bridge

It looks like they almost made it clear. A little less rudder and they
might have missed the rocks. Be interesting to hear whether there was a
helmsman or whether the course change was just punched into a voyage
management system (autopilot) which just used its standard algorithm to
determine the rudder angle.

Pueblo Dancer

unread,

Jan 16, 2012, 10:09:30 AM1/16/12

to

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 08:58:46 -0500, Rich Webb
<bbe...@mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote:

>My guess would be that trying to steer clear was the proximate cause of
>the grounding.
>
>A possible scenario: Bridge is uncomfortable with their track and feels
>that they may standing into danger and decide to come right.

This morning, the Capt. is saying that they were given/using the wrong
maps.

Uwe Hercksen

unread,

Jan 16, 2012, 10:26:19 AM1/16/12

to

Bill Sloman schrieb:

> I would have thought that a cruise ship could have afforded side-scan
> sonar - I worked on a phased array ultrasonic imaging scanner for
> medical diagnostics 1976-1979 and under-sea imaging was a whole lot
> easier (and already popular, even then - fishing boats used it to find
> fish!).

Hello,

but the front-scan sonar needed here should work over a distance of
several miles, the medical ultrasonic scanner only over a distance of
about 10 centimeters. Think about the radar equation, 10000 times the
distance means 10^16 times more pulse power.

Bye

John Larkin

unread,

Jan 16, 2012, 10:30:29 AM1/16/12

to

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 02:04:17 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill....@ieee.org> wrote:

>On Jan 16, 3:46 am, Mark <makol...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > GPS depends on receiving signals from at least four satellites at the
>> > same time. Typically nine are visible, but they go around the world
>> > twice a day, so new satellites are moving into view and others moving
>> > out of sight all the time.
>>
>> > The system was developed for the armed forces, so presumably one of
>> > the constraints on the design was that it would be difficult to spoof.
>>
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System
>
>It was your armed forces, so maybe they really were stupid - those who
>don't know history are condemned to repeat it

So you are saying that the people who conceived and implemented GPS
are stupid?

John

k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz

unread,

Jan 16, 2012, 11:02:50 AM1/16/12

to

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 07:09:30 -0800, Pueblo Dancer <Kac...@AllHopiIsLost.org>
wrote:

...and they didn't notice that they'd taken the wrong turn at Albequirky? The
captain is dead, in any case.

Bill Sloman

unread,

Jan 16, 2012, 11:28:25 AM1/16/12

to

On Jan 16, 4:30 pm, John Larkin

<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 02:04:17 -0800 (PST),BillSloman
>

> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> >On Jan 16, 3:46 am, Mark <makol...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > GPS depends on receiving signals from at least four satellites at the
> >> > same time. Typically nine are visible, but they go around the world
> >> > twice a day, so new satellites are moving into view and others moving
> >> > out of sight all the time.
>
> >> > The system was developed for the armed forces, so presumably one of
> >> > the constraints on the design was that it would be difficult to spoof.
>
> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System
>
> >It was your armed forces, so maybe they really were stupid - those who
> >don't know history are condemned to repeat it

> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Beams

>
> So you are saying that the people who conceived and implemented GPS
> are stupid?

If it hasn't got some kind of anti-spoofing capability, it isn't going
to be much use during armed conflict.

I've got no idea whether it has or not - but it would be odd if it
didn't. And why did you snip my reference to the "battle of the beams"
without marking the snip? It's a rhetorical question ...

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Bill Sloman

unread,

Jan 16, 2012, 11:30:34 AM1/16/12

to

Side scan sonar doesn't have to scan directly to either side - you can
orient the fan beam so that it does scan ahead.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

mpm

unread,

Jan 16, 2012, 11:48:54 AM1/16/12

to

> Rich Webb Norfolk, VA- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Here in the US, state laws generally REQUIRE a local, licensed, harbor
pilot to bring the ship in.
Presumably, they are extremely familiar with the harbor and sea lanes,
and therefore, safer than the boat's captain.
I wonder if those same sort of regulations apply overseas.

My brother (who works on a cruise ship in Europe) says some of these
"captains" over there are "cowboys".
The rumor du juor is the captain was showing off for one his buddies
on shore.
I heard that 3rd hand, at least, so no intent to start an
unsubstantiated rumor. Would make sense though.
A boat that big, and that expensive, has GOT to have many
countermeasures against "accidents" like this!
No (rational) inventor would ever pump money into a project like that
without those protections.

-mpm

Bill Sloman

unread,

Jan 16, 2012, 11:33:58 AM1/16/12

to

On Jan 16, 4:26 pm, Uwe Hercksen <herck...@mew.uni-erlangen.de> wrote:
> BillSlomanschrieb:

The attentuation in the body is rather higher than in sea water, and
the frequencies required to resolve rocks rather lower than the 2MHz
we were using. Front scan sonar has been a practical proposition for a
long time.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Ken S. Tucker

unread,

Jan 16, 2012, 12:47:48 PM1/16/12

to

> Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Sloman, the facts are simple, Cpt Fat Wop was stuffing his pie hole
with
pizza made by Lugi the waiter instead of being careful with his boat,
here's the report,

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/01/15/third-person-found-alive-after-search-for-survivors-deadly-shipwreck-resumes/

If Cpt Fat Wop can't see an island, how do you expect him to use
sonar,
his eyeballs didn't work.
Ken

Message has been deleted

Martin Brown

unread,

Jan 16, 2012, 1:33:59 PM1/16/12

to

It seems to have had all mod cons and a black box so the GPS track and
recordings of the sensors and bridge conversations should shed a lot of
light on proceedings. They are reporting it as human error here now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16576979

It shows an unauthorised deviation in the route by the captain.

Chances are that even if the forward looking sonar beam had seen an
obstruction it would already be too late to turn such a massive ship
when travelling at full cruise speed. Supertankers have similar problems
with manouverability and turning circles.

It is also possible that in trying to avoid a collision they tore a gash
along the side of the ship in a similar way to the sinking of the
Titanic. Both ships might well have survived a head on into the
obstruction which would disfigure the bow and rearrange the furniture
mightily but the remaining watertight bulkheads ought to hold.

A long tear down one side letting in water in is a worst case scenario.

Regards,
Martin Brown

Winston

unread,

Jan 16, 2012, 2:15:58 PM1/16/12

to

Fred Abse wrote:

> On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 19:47:37 -0800, Winston wrote:
>
>> I visited a friend in the hills nearby.
>> One of his neighbors has a GPS jammer set up.
>> Locating my friend's house was a right little
>> b**tard. The GPS display was telling me stuff
>> that was obviously Not So.
>

> I'd have thought that a call to the FCC should sort that out.

The FCC don't appear interested in that sort of thing.

I figure it is a manpower issue.

Oh Well.

--Winston

josephkk

unread,

Jan 16, 2012, 2:57:46 PM1/16/12

to

On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 09:09:18 -0800, John Larkin
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 23:14:38 -0800, My Name Is Tzu How Do You Do
><T...@hereforlongtime.org> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 17:18:01 -0800, John Larkin
>><jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Yup. Big ships are now mostly direct-drive reversing diesels. Steam is
>>>more efficient, but it's hard to find crews that can manage the
>>>complexity of a steam plant.
>>>
>>>John
>>>
>> Not easy to route steam to modern azipod drive systems as well.
>
>I think there were some big steam-electric ships, aircraft carriers if
>I recall.
>
>John
>

Military ships do have different requirements and design goals. Most US
carriers and cruisers are steam driven. Still, many smaller (destroyer /
frigate) class men-of-war have compound turbine engines.

?-)

John Larkin

unread,

Jan 16, 2012, 3:44:58 PM1/16/12

to

Some of the fast boats, coast guard cutters and such, are diesel with
a gas turbine for sprints. The GTs use a *lot* of fuel.

John

Bill Sloman

unread,

Jan 16, 2012, 6:45:07 PM1/16/12

to

On Jan 16, 6:47 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:

> On Jan 16, 8:33 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 16, 4:26 pm, Uwe Hercksen <herck...@mew.uni-erlangen.de> wrote:
>
> > > BillSlomanschrieb:
>
> > > > I would have thought that a cruise ship could have afforded side-scan
> > > > sonar - I worked on a phased array ultrasonic imaging scanner for
> > > > medical diagnostics 1976-1979 and under-sea imaging was a whole lot
> > > > easier (and already popular, even then - fishing boats used it to find
> > > > fish!).
>
> > > Hello,
>
> > > but the front-scan sonar needed here should work over a distance of
> > > several miles, the medical ultrasonic scanner only over a distance of
> > > about 10 centimeters. Think about the radar equation, 10000 times the
> > > distance means 10^16 times more pulse power.
>
> > The attentuation in the body is rather higher than in sea water, and
> > the frequencies required to resolve rocks rather lower than the 2MHz
> > we were using. Front scan sonar has been a practical proposition for a
> > long time.
>

> Sloman, the facts are simple, Cpt Fat Wop was stuffing his pie hole
> with pizza made by Lugi the waiter instead of being careful with his
> boat, here's the report,
>

> http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/01/15/third-person-found-alive-afte...

>
> If Cpt Fat Wop can't see an island, how do you expect him to use
> sonar, his eyeballs didn't work.

Fine,if you are prepared to put your trust in Faux News.

It doesn't have much to do with what sonar can (or can't) do.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Pueblo Dancer

unread,

Jan 16, 2012, 9:48:18 PM1/16/12

to

There is also info from a crew member that the captain was screwing
around, showing off when it happened.

That goes along with him being so scared that he ran before the ship
was even done being evacuated. He knew he was in deep kimshee.

He'll get life in an Italian jail. Oh joy. He won't last 15 years.

Sad for all those folks though. They (the news) were up to 6, but I'd
say those other 26 'missing' will be found in the ship or under it.

Pueblo Dancer

unread,

Jan 16, 2012, 9:52:36 PM1/16/12

to

The sonar doesn't matter during the avoidance maneuver.

It is a three steer sine wave maneuver. You steer right, and then
left, just as the tip of the ship passes the pinion, then right again to
bring the tail back out after the pinion has passed the stern.

Pueblo Dancer

unread,

Jan 16, 2012, 9:54:14 PM1/16/12

to

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 08:48:54 -0800 (PST), mpm <mpmi...@aol.com> wrote:

>Here in the US, state laws generally REQUIRE a local, licensed, harbor
>pilot to bring the ship in.
>Presumably, they are extremely familiar with the harbor and sea lanes,
>and therefore, safer than the boat's captain.
>I wonder if those same sort of regulations apply overseas.

They were not at a port.

Pueblo Dancer

unread,

Jan 16, 2012, 9:56:50 PM1/16/12

to

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 10:18:03 -0800, Fred Abse
<excret...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 19:47:37 -0800, Winston wrote:
>
>> I visited a friend in the hills nearby.
>> One of his neighbors has a GPS jammer set up.
>> Locating my friend's house was a right little
>> b**tard. The GPS display was telling me stuff
>> that was obviously Not So.
>
>I'd have thought that a call to the FCC should sort that out.

It has to be a lie. ANY ground based carrier operator at that
frequency would be triangulated, sought out, and curtailed, confiscated,
fined and fucked.

Pueblo Dancer

unread,

Jan 16, 2012, 9:58:57 PM1/16/12

to

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 11:15:58 -0800, Winston <Win...@Bigbrother.net>
wrote:

Bullshit! They absolutely want to stop all illegal carriers emitted,
especially if on illegal bands, which these are for transmission.

They became lax about the CB band and TV commercials, but that's about
it.

My Name Is Tzu How Do You Do

unread,

Jan 16, 2012, 10:00:15 PM1/16/12

to

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 11:57:46 -0800, josephkk
<joseph_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

AZIPODS, you stupid fucks! LEARN TO READ. They are ELECTRIC.

Gib Bogle

unread,

Jan 16, 2012, 10:05:37 PM1/16/12

to

On 15/01/2012 2:12 p.m., Fred Bloggs wrote:

> The captain said he had been over that route many times before, close
> to the island so passengers could take pictures... and where the ship
> ended up is not where it struck the rocks, they maneuvered the ship to
> its present location after the collision. As you can see he damned
> near beached it, the water isn't waist deep there, and all this
> hysteria about reliving the Titanic is kinda sad...

Waist deep? Looks more like about 10m to me.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16563562

dagmarg...@yahoo.com

unread,

Jan 17, 2012, 12:01:33 AM1/17/12

to

On Jan 16, 1:18 pm, Fred Abse <excretatau...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 19:47:37 -0800, Winston wrote:
> > I visited a friend in the hills nearby.
> > One of his neighbors has a GPS jammer set up.
> > Locating my friend's house was a right little
> > b**tard. The GPS display was telling me stuff
> > that was obviously Not So.
>
> I'd have thought that a call to the FCC should sort that out.

No need--

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/11/us-usa-homelandsecurity-websites-idUSTRE80A1RC20120111

<quote>
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security's command center routinely
monitors dozens of popular websites, including Facebook, Twitter,
Hulu, WikiLeaks and news and gossip sites including the Huffington
Post and Drudge Report, according to a government document.

A "privacy compliance review" issued by DHS last November says that
since at least June 2010, its national operations center has been
operating a "Social Networking/Media Capability" which involves
regular monitoring of "publicly available online forums, blogs, public
websites and message boards."
</quote>

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

Ken S. Tucker

unread,

Jan 17, 2012, 12:46:12 AM1/17/12

to

So what, I was a Medical Ultrasound Field Service Engineer,
Am I supposed to prevent Cpt. Wop from hitting a rock?
Reports indicate he was DUI while ordering the ship into rocks.
You're right though, the whole thing could be a hoax.
Ken

Winston

unread,

Jan 17, 2012, 1:31:27 AM1/17/12

to

I don't remember seeing you there at the time.

But suit yourself. :)

--Winston

Winston

unread,

Jan 17, 2012, 1:54:57 AM1/17/12

to

Have a look at some of the cheap gadgets available
to any loony tunes with a credit card:

http://www.dealspeeder.com/gadgets-1/cool-gadgets/covert-portable-gps-jammer-full-metal-case
http://www.espow.com/jammers/security-surveillance-jammer.html
http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/03/08/1327216/30-gps-jammer-can-wreak-havok
http://www.mcbub.com/item/Mini-GPS-Jammer-Blocker-Anti-tracker-GPS-134081/

etc. etc.

> They became lax about the CB band and TV commercials, but that's about
> it.

Wakey wakey! :)

--Winston

Winston

unread,

Jan 17, 2012, 2:26:59 AM1/17/12

to

OK, but from all appearances, the FCC has no ability
to deal with all communications law breakers, even if DHS
shared their findings with FCC.
FCC had adequate funding and technical resources in
the past, for sure. Things changed bigtime.

It is a huge problem now that nearly all of us
use wireless technology every day.

Think about the incredible increase in RF spectrum
use over the last few years and contrast that with the tiny
increases shown in the budget, especially considering the
50% fall in the value of the dollar in the time considered:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2202/2073190473_f1c65417a7.jpg
http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2011/06/mobile-social-media-use-nearly-doubled-in-past-year.html

--Winston

Bill Sloman

unread,

Jan 17, 2012, 3:33:26 AM1/17/12

to

Trying doing joined-up logic for once in your life. He could have had
a sonar scanner which would have been able to see the rock.

> Reports indicate he was DUI while ordering the ship into rocks.

Faux News may have access to Italian breathalyser reports, but they
are also in the business of producing entertainment for right-wing
nitwits with predictable prejudices about citizens of countries
outside the US.

> You're right though, the whole thing could be a hoax.

More reputable news services also have pictures of the half submerged
cruise-ship lying on it's side, which seem unlikely to have been photo-
shopped, but they are being a bit more restrained in their
speculations about how things went wrong.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Ken S. Tucker

unread,

Jan 17, 2012, 11:18:53 AM1/17/12

to

On Jan 17, 12:33 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> On Jan 17, 6:46 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:

...

> > So what, I was a Medical Ultrasound Field Service Engineer,
> > Am I supposed to prevent Cpt. Wop from hitting a rock?
>
> Trying doing joined-up logic for once in your life. He could have had
> a sonar scanner which would have been able to see the rock.

If Bill was baby sitting a kid , and the kid lit a match, he'd jump up
yell FIRE, and run out the front door.
Sloman, you've never been a manager have you?

> > Reports indicate he was DUI while ordering the ship into rocks.
>
> Faux News may have access to Italian breathalyser reports, but they
> are also in the business of producing entertainment for right-wing
> nitwits with predictable prejudices about citizens of countries
> outside the US.

Are you politically biased?

> > You're right though, the whole thing could be a hoax.
>
> More reputable news services also have pictures of the half submerged
> cruise-ship lying on it's side, which seem unlikely to have been photo-
> shopped, but they are being a bit more restrained in their
> speculations about how things went wrong.

You must be a govmonk worker, they only make "honest mistakes".
Ken

John Larkin

unread,

Jan 17, 2012, 11:53:47 AM1/17/12

to

He had something better: a chart that told him where there weren't
rocks.

John

Bill Sloman

unread,

Jan 17, 2012, 6:20:26 PM1/17/12

to

On Jan 17, 5:18 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
> On Jan 17, 12:33 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 17, 6:46 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
> ...
> > > So what, I was a Medical Ultrasound Field Service Engineer,
> > > Am I supposed to prevent Cpt. Wop from hitting a rock?
>
> > Trying doing joined-up logic for once in your life. He could have had
> > a sonar scanner which would have been able to see the rock.
>
> If Bill was baby sitting a kid , and the kid lit a match, he'd jump up
> yell FIRE, and run out the front door.

This is a prediction which would be hard to falsify, since none of my
nieces and nephews see me as a possible baby-sitter. My own up-
bringing involved my parents getting very vigilant about any activity
which might be described as "playing with fire", so if I ever did get
lumbered with baby-sitting I'd presumably make sure that the kid never
got anywhere near a match in the first place.

Quite why Ken S. Tucker is exercising his formidable imagination in
this way escapes me - one day he may tell us about the disabling head
injury that aborted his promising career in physics, but for the
moment we have to deduce its consequences from the incoherent
ramblings he posts here from time to time.

<snipped the rest - it didn't make any more sense>

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

josephkk

unread,

Jan 17, 2012, 9:45:18 PM1/17/12

to

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 07:09:30 -0800, Pueblo Dancer
<Kac...@AllHopiIsLost.org> wrote:

>On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 08:58:46 -0500, Rich Webb
><bbe...@mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote:
>
>>My guess would be that trying to steer clear was the proximate cause of
>>the grounding.
>>
>>A possible scenario: Bridge is uncomfortable with their track and feels
>>that they may standing into danger and decide to come right.
>
> This morning, the Capt. is saying that they were given/using the wrong
>maps.

Somehow i doubt that is going to stand up.

?-)

josephkk

unread,

Jan 17, 2012, 9:50:19 PM1/17/12

to

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 08:48:54 -0800 (PST), mpm <mpmi...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Jan 16, 8:58 am, Rich Webb <bbew...@mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 04:48:32 -0800, Pueblo Dancer
>>
<snip>
>> It looks like they almost made it clear. A little less rudder and they
>> might have missed the rocks. Be interesting to hear whether there was a
>> helmsman or whether the course change was just punched into a voyage
>> management system (autopilot) which just used its standard algorithm to
>> determine the rudder angle.
>>
>> --
>> Rich Webb Norfolk, VA- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -

>
>Here in the US, state laws generally REQUIRE a local, licensed, harbor
>pilot to bring the ship in.
>Presumably, they are extremely familiar with the harbor and sea lanes,
>and therefore, safer than the boat's captain.

Somehow i doubt that the advantage is really that much. Just a couple of
years ago a harbor pilot went blundering about and hit the San Francisco
Oakland Bay Bridge, nearly sunk the ship.

>I wonder if those same sort of regulations apply overseas.
>

>My brother (who works on a cruise ship in Europe) says some of these
>"captains" over there are "cowboys".
>The rumor du juor is the captain was showing off for one his buddies
>on shore.
>I heard that 3rd hand, at least, so no intent to start an
>unsubstantiated rumor. Would make sense though.
>A boat that big, and that expensive, has GOT to have many
>countermeasures against "accidents" like this!
>No (rational) inventor would ever pump money into a project like that
>without those protections.

When was the last time you saw a rational investor?

>
>-mpm

josephkk

unread,

Jan 17, 2012, 11:10:25 PM1/17/12

to

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 12:44:58 -0800, John Larkin

As if there was no consideration of the power produced.

?-)

Ken S. Tucker

unread,

Jan 18, 2012, 1:20:48 PM1/18/12

to

On Jan 17, 3:20 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> On Jan 17, 5:18 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 17, 12:33 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 17, 6:46 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
> > ...
> > > > So what, I was a Medical Ultrasound Field Service Engineer,
> > > > Am I supposed to prevent Cpt. Wop from hitting a rock?
>
> > > Trying doing joined-up logic for once in your life. He could have had
> > > a sonar scanner which would have been able to see the rock.
>
> > If Bill was baby sitting a kid , and the kid lit a match, he'd jump up
> > yell FIRE, and run out the front door.
>
> This is a prediction which would be hard to falsify, since none of my
> nieces and nephews see me as a possible baby-sitter. My own up-
> bringing involved my parents getting very vigilant about any activity
> which might be described as "playing with fire", so if I ever did get
> lumbered with baby-sitting I'd presumably make sure that the kid never
> got anywhere near a match in the first place.

Mommy didn't let you have a chemistry set, well that explains it.
Anyway, your deep prejustice against "Faux" and all things American,
once again blinded you from the facts.
The news was indeed generous to Cpt. Fat Wop, at 1st.

> Quite why Ken S. Tucker is exercising his formidable imagination in
> this way escapes me - one day he may tell us about the disabling head
> injury that aborted his promising career in physics, but for the
> moment we have to deduce its consequences from the incoherent
> ramblings he posts here from time to time.

From time to time I make briefs freely available publically,

http://physics.trak4.com/

Topically, those briefs use GR to describe gravitation electrically.
On close examination, QT results from GR, I write in a way to
make that clear.
What has Dr. Sloman done?
Ken

lang...@fonz.dk

unread,

Jan 18, 2012, 1:43:30 PM1/18/12

to

On 16 Jan., 16:09, Pueblo Dancer <Kach...@AllHopiIsLost.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 08:58:46 -0500, Rich Webb
>

> <bbew...@mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote:
> >My guess would be that trying to steer clear was the proximate cause of
> >the grounding.
>
> >A possible scenario: Bridge is uncomfortable with their track and feels
> >that they may standing into danger and decide to come right.
>
> This morning, the Capt. is saying that they were given/using the wrong
> maps.

today he is saying the reason he was one of the first to leave the
ship,
was that he tripped and fell into a lifeboat ...

-Lasse

Winston

unread,

Jan 18, 2012, 4:10:55 PM1/18/12

to

While his dog ate his homework, no doubt.

--Winston

Bill Sloman

unread,

Jan 18, 2012, 5:31:06 PM1/18/12

to

On Jan 18, 7:20 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
> On Jan 17, 3:20 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 17, 5:18 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 17, 12:33 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 17, 6:46 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
> > > ...
> > > > > So what, I was a Medical Ultrasound Field Service Engineer,
> > > > > Am I supposed to prevent Cpt. Wop from hitting a rock?
>
> > > > Trying doing joined-up logic for once in your life. He could have had
> > > > a sonar scanner which would have been able to see the rock.
>
> > > If Bill was baby sitting a kid , and the kid lit a match, he'd jump up
> > > yell FIRE, and run out the front door.
>
> > This is a prediction which would be hard to falsify, since none of my
> > nieces and nephews see me as a possible baby-sitter. My own up-
> > bringing involved my parents getting very vigilant about any activity
> > which might be described as "playing with fire", so if I ever did get
> > lumbered with baby-sitting I'd presumably make sure that the kid never
> > got anywhere near a match in the first place.
>
> Mommy didn't let you have a chemistry set, well that explains it.

My father and mother both had degrees in chemistry, and I went on to
get a Ph.D. in physical chemistry - your imagination regularly leads
you astray, but this is further off the wall than usual.

> Anyway, your deep prejustice against "Faux" and all things American,

I've got a perfectly rational distaste for Faux News and Rush
Limbaurgh - as would anybody with brain in their head. This doesn't
generalise to "all things American" otherwise I wouldn't be quite so
fond of all the stuff the Bob Widlar designed. As usual, you are
imagining stuff which happens to be completely wrong.

> once again blinded you from the facts.
> The news was indeed generous to Cpt. Fat Wop, at 1st.
>
> > Quite why Ken S. Tucker is exercising his formidable imagination in
> > this way escapes me - one day he may tell us about the disabling head
> > injury that aborted his promising career in physics, but for the
> > moment we have to deduce its consequences from the incoherent
> > ramblings he posts here from time to time.
>

> From time to time I make briefs freely available publicly,

>
> http://physics.trak4.com/
>
> Topically, those briefs use GR to describe gravitation electrically.
> On close examination, QT results from GR, I write in a way to
> make that clear.

I've seen them, as have others. They are pretentious nonsense.

> What has Dr. Sloman done?

Check out scholar.google.com searching on "A W Sloman". I'm not an
academic, and the one cited paper got written up just after I'd moved
the the Netherlands and didn't have anything better with which to
occupy my time, but the less cited papers give an indication of some
of the areas where I did do some work.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

My Name Is Tzu How Do You Do

unread,

Jan 18, 2012, 8:19:33 PM1/18/12

to

Looks like the Italian criminals are just as loony as the Italian court
system.

Maybe that one certain prosecutor should take *his* case. (the one that
railroaded the American girl into prison)

mpm

unread,

Jan 18, 2012, 11:40:56 PM1/18/12

to

On Jan 17, 1:54 am, Winston <Wins...@Bigbrother.net> wrote:
> Pueblo Dancer wrote:

> > On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 11:15:58 -0800, Winston<Wins...@Bigbrother.net>

> > wrote:
>
> >> Fred Abse wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 19:47:37 -0800, Winston wrote:
>
> >>>> I visited a friend in the hills nearby.
> >>>> One of his neighbors has a GPS jammer set up.
> >>>> Locating my friend's house was a right little
> >>>> b**tard. The GPS display was telling me stuff
> >>>> that was obviously Not So.
>
> >>> I'd have thought that a call to the FCC should sort that out.
>
> >> The FCC don't appear interested in that sort of thing.
>
> >> I figure it is a manpower issue.
>
> >> Oh Well.
>
> >> --Winston
>
> > Bullshit! They absolutely want to stop all illegal carriers emitted,
> > especially if on illegal bands, which these are for transmission.
>
> Have a look at some of the cheap gadgets available
> to any loony tunes with a credit card:
>

> http://www.dealspeeder.com/gadgets-1/cool-gadgets/covert-portable-gps...http://www.espow.com/jammers/security-surveillance-jammer.htmlhttp://science.slashdot.org/story/11/03/08/1327216/30-gps-jammer-can-...http://www.mcbub.com/item/Mini-GPS-Jammer-Blocker-Anti-tracker-GPS-13...

>
> etc. etc.
>
> > They became lax about the CB band and TV commercials, but that's about
> > it.
>
> Wakey wakey! :)
>

> --Winston- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

They (FCC) are just big and slow, like many government beauracracies.
They have a pseudo enforcment bureau capability, but they are
primarily a regulatory agency, not a policeman.
This hampers what they can do, but the often work with federal, state
and local law enforcement.
You just don't always hear about it.
Probably better explained as an effort to tamp down the more egregious
offenders, and not too much more beyond that in most cases.

With regards to jammers and GPS spoofers, the FCC opened an Omnibus
Enforcement proceeding last October listing 21 online retailers
selling those products.
Time will tell how many get run out of the market, or go underground.

Regardless...
Folks that truly want these devices can always buy them overseas and
have them FedEx'd to their front door in some cases.
There's really no effective way to track and intercept every overseas
purchase by consumers. (that I know of..)

But to your point: It is absolutely true that in the last 20 years
the use of wireless devices has exploded in popularity.
To me, it's amazing things aren't any worse than they are.
But I also have to say, if some a-hole thought it was cute or funny to
operate a GPS spoofer, jammer or cell jammer around me, I'd probably
beat the shit out of 'em.

mpm

unread,

Jan 18, 2012, 11:52:13 PM1/18/12

to

> Bill Sloman, Nijmegen- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I'm still trying to figure out if that fat-ass, pill-poppin' Limbaugh
even believes most the stuff he spews out.

But that said, I can't think of anything more "American" than getting
paid big bucks to say toxic things to, or about, other people.
Hell, send some of that cash this way and I'll start my own Oxycodone
addiction.

Winston

unread,

Jan 19, 2012, 1:17:23 AM1/19/12

to

mpm wrote:

(...)

> But to your point: It is absolutely true that in the last 20 years
> the use of wireless devices has exploded in popularity.
> To me, it's amazing things aren't any worse than they are.
> But I also have to say, if some a-hole thought it was cute or funny to
> operate a GPS spoofer, jammer or cell jammer around me, I'd probably
> beat the shit out of 'em.

Microwave triangulation would be effective
to document the little monster for law enforcement.
Luckily, it's probably a CW source.

http://www.antennaexperts.in/model-detail.asp?RecID=36
http://www.summitsource.com/product_info.php?ref=1&products_id=7133

--Winston

John Larkin

unread,

Jan 19, 2012, 10:15:52 AM1/19/12

to

On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 20:52:13 -0800 (PST), mpm <mpmi...@aol.com>
wrote:

He calls himself "an entertainer."

>
>But that said, I can't think of anything more "American" than getting
>paid big bucks to say toxic things to, or about, other people.

If there's a market, someone will provide.

John

Ken S. Tucker

unread,

Jan 19, 2012, 10:39:41 AM1/19/12

to

On Jan 18, 2:31 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> On Jan 18, 7:20 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:

...

> > Mommy didn't let you have a chemistry set, well that explains it.
>
> My father and mother both had degrees in chemistry, and I went on to
> get a Ph.D. in physical chemistry - your imagination regularly leads
> you astray, but this is further off the wall than usual.

Yet your parents couldn't teach their brats how to safely use matches,
they hardly sound educated, but you can blame your emotional
problems on them, and seek counciling.

> > Anyway, your deep prejustice against "Faux" and all things American,
>
> I've got a perfectly rational distaste for Faux News and Rush
> Limbaurgh - as would anybody with brain in their head. This doesn't
> generalise to "all things American" otherwise I wouldn't be quite so
> fond of all the stuff the Bob Widlar designed. As usual, you are
> imagining stuff which happens to be completely wrong.

They nailed Cpt Fat Wop pretty good.

> > once again blinded you from the facts.
> > The news was indeed generous to Cpt. Fat Wop, at 1st.

>

> > From time to time I make briefs freely available publicly,
>
> >http://physics.trak4.com/
>
> > Topically, those briefs use GR to describe gravitation electrically.
> > On close examination, QT results from GR, I write in a way to
> > make that clear.
>
> I've seen them, as have others. They are pretentious nonsense.

Sloman, have you been talking to God on your CB again? As it happens
the analysis predicts LIGO type apparatus will NOT detect g-waves,
a rather unpopular position, but theoretics is unpopular anyway, and
after 10 years the detectors are still null.
Incidentally, I'm under no obligation to publish as I work for
commercial
science.
Our groups theory opens new theoretical vista's, boosting the need to
decide if g-waves exist as theorized, our theory makes that
determination
much more important, with expenditures nearing $1,000,000,000
globally.

> > What has Dr. Sloman done?
>
> Check out scholar.google.com searching on "A W Sloman". I'm not an
> academic, and the one cited paper got written up just after I'd moved
> the the Netherlands and didn't have anything better with which to
> occupy my time, but the less cited papers give an indication of some
> of the areas where I did do some work.

Wow, did you discover navel lint too?
Ken

Bill Sloman

unread,

Jan 19, 2012, 10:49:58 AM1/19/12

to

On Jan 19, 4:15 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 20:52:13 -0800 (PST), mpm <mpmill...@aol.com>

> >I'm still trying to figure out if that fat-ass, pill-poppin' Limbaugh
> >even believes most the stuff he spews out.
>
> He calls himself "an entertainer."
>
> >But that said, I can't think of anything more "American" than getting
> >paid big bucks to say toxic things to, or about, other people.
>
> If there's a market, someone will provide.

Truth in advertising should compel FauX News to call themselves
something like "Fox Spite" or "Fox Prejudice-Fodder".

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Bill Sloman

unread,

Jan 19, 2012, 11:16:08 AM1/19/12

to

On Jan 19, 4:39 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
> On Jan 18, 2:31 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 18, 7:20 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
> ...
> > > Mommy didn't let you have a chemistry set, well that explains it.
>
> > My father and mother both had degrees in chemistry, and I went on to
> > get a Ph.D. in physical chemistry - your imagination regularly leads
> > you astray, but this is further off the wall than usual.
>
> Yet your parents couldn't teach their brats how to safely use matches,

They most certainly could, and did, but they didn't trust our
judgement when it came to exploiting these skills. Most adults are
better than most children in predicting and anticipating how things
can go wrong.

> they hardly sound educated, but you can blame your emotional
> problems on them, and seek counciling.

Well they did teach me how to spell counselling, and my only
"emotional problem" which I'm prepared to lay at their door is a
persistent abhorrence of nonsense. I don't find it a problem, but
nonsense-pedlars like you and John Larkin seem to feel that I'd be
improved if I was more tolerant of the rubbish you post was little

> > > Anyway, your deep prejustice against "Faux" and all things American,
>
> > I've got a perfectly rational distaste for Faux News and Rush
> > Limbaurgh - as would anybody with brain in their head. This doesn't
> > generalise to "all things American" otherwise I wouldn't be quite so
> > fond of all the stuff the Bob Widlar designed. As usual, you are
> > imagining stuff which happens to be completely wrong.
>
> They nailed Cpt Fat Wop pretty good.

If a little before all the evidence was actually available.

> > > once again blinded you from the facts.
> > > The news was indeed generous to Cpt. Fat Wop, at 1st.
>
> > > From time to time I make briefs freely available publicly,
>
> > >http://physics.trak4.com/
>
> > > Topically, those briefs use GR to describe gravitation electrically.
> > > On close examination, QT results from GR, I write in a way to
> > > make that clear.
>
> > I've seen them, as have others. They are pretentious nonsense.
>
> Sloman, have you been talking to God on your CB again? As it happens
> the analysis predicts LIGO type apparatus will NOT detect g-waves,
> a rather unpopular position, but theoretics is unpopular anyway, and
> after 10 years the detectors are still null.
> Incidentally, I'm under no obligation to publish as I work for
> commercial science.
> Our groups theory opens new theoretical vista's, boosting the need to
> decide if g-waves exist as theorized, our theory makes that
> determination
> much more important, with expenditures nearing $1,000,000,000
> globally.

I don't actually care how much money would have been saved if your
eccentric ideas had been accepted - the point at issue is that you
haven't persuaded the physics community that you ideas make sense,
which is why they show up on an unrefereed web-site, rather than in a
peer-reviewed journal. The fact that I find that they read like all
the other pseudo-physics web-sites that - mostly - tell me that
Einstein was wrong, does influence my opinion too.

> > > What has Dr. Sloman done?
>
> > Check out scholar.google.com searching on "A W Sloman". I'm not an
> > academic, and the one cited paper got written up just after I'd moved
> > the the Netherlands and didn't have anything better with which to
> > occupy my time, but the less cited papers give an indication of some
> > of the areas where I did do some work.
>
> Wow, did you discover navel lint too?

Not one of my areas of interest. I'm reminded of the husband who left
the trivial decisions to his wife - where they should live, which
house they should buy - while he concentrated on the important
decisions, such as whether the country should recognise Red China.

You wanted to tell the world that the investment in LIGO was ill-
advised? Fine. Sadly, nobody took you seriously. I've confined myself
to more trivial tasks, like improving the electron-beam-
microfabricator that Fairchild used to make the masks for their 100K
ECL logic parts, and the crystal-weighing electronics that - as one
stage - made 95% of the single crystal GaAs produced in the West.
Nobody made a fuss about it, but the machines worked better after with
my modifications, and not did the new production incorporate them, but
we shipped a few up-grades for machine already in the field.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

John Larkin

unread,

Jan 19, 2012, 11:33:36 AM1/19/12

to

Fox is, if anything, more objective than the New York Times. The Times
has become ludicrous.

John

John Larkin

unread,

Jan 19, 2012, 2:11:11 PM1/19/12

to

On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 08:16:08 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill....@ieee.org> wrote:

>On Jan 19, 4:39 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>> On Jan 18, 2:31 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jan 18, 7:20 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>> ...
>> > > Mommy didn't let you have a chemistry set, well that explains it.
>>
>> > My father and mother both had degrees in chemistry, and I went on to
>> > get a Ph.D. in physical chemistry - your imagination regularly leads
>> > you astray, but this is further off the wall than usual.
>>
>> Yet your parents couldn't teach their brats how to safely use matches,
>
>They most certainly could, and did, but they didn't trust our
>judgement when it came to exploiting these skills. Most adults are
>better than most children in predicting and anticipating how things
>can go wrong.
>
>> they hardly sound educated, but you can blame your emotional
>> problems on them, and seek counciling.
>
>Well they did teach me how to spell counselling, and my only
>"emotional problem" which I'm prepared to lay at their door is a
>persistent abhorrence of nonsense. I don't find it a problem, but
>nonsense-pedlars like you and John Larkin seem to feel that I'd be
>improved if I was more tolerant of the rubbish you post was little

I guess they didn't teach you much about employability. Or likability.

John

Bill Sloman

unread,

Jan 19, 2012, 5:08:11 PM1/19/12

to

On Jan 19, 5:33 pm, John Larkin

<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 07:49:58 -0800 (PST),BillSloman
>

<snip>

>
> >> >I'm still trying to figure out if that fat-ass, pill-poppin' Limbaugh
> >> >even believes most the stuff he spews out.
>
> >> He calls himself "an entertainer."
>
> >> >But that said, I can't think of anything more "American" than getting
> >> >paid big bucks to say toxic things to, or about, other people.
>
> >> If there's a market, someone will provide.
>
> >Truth in advertising should compel FauX News to call themselves
> >something like "Fox Spite" or "Fox Prejudice-Fodder".
>
> Fox is, if anything, more objective than the New York Times. The Times
> has become ludicrous.

So Faux News serves up stuff that fits your prejudices more closely
than the stuff you see in the New York Times.

One suspects that this says more about your prejudices than it says
about the quality of the New York Times.

The links that you chose to post here do seem to come from rather
right-wing publications.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Bill Sloman

unread,

Jan 19, 2012, 5:17:27 PM1/19/12

to

On Jan 19, 8:11 pm, John Larkin

<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 08:16:08 -0800 (PST),BillSloman
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> >On Jan 19, 4:39 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:

> >> On Jan 18, 2:31 pm,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> >> > On Jan 18, 7:20 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
> >> ...
> >> > > Mommy didn't let you have a chemistry set, well that explains it.
>
> >> > My father and mother both had degrees in chemistry, and I went on to
> >> > get a Ph.D. in physical chemistry - your imagination regularly leads
> >> > you astray, but this is further off the wall than usual.
>
> >> Yet your parents couldn't teach their brats how to safely use matches,
>
> >They most certainly could, and did, but they didn't trust our
> >judgement when it came to exploiting these skills. Most adults are
> >better than most children in predicting and anticipating how things
> >can go wrong.
>
> >> they hardly sound educated, but you can blame your emotional
> >> problems on them, and seek counciling.
>
> >Well they did teach me how to spell counselling, and my only
> >"emotional problem" which I'm prepared to lay at their door is a
> >persistent abhorrence of nonsense. I don't find it a problem, but
> >nonsense-pedlars like you and John Larkin seem to feel that I'd be

> >improved if I was more tolerant of the rubbish you post.

>
> I guess they didn't teach you much about employability.

I was pretty much continuously employed until I moved to the
Netherlands in 1993. My father's opinion at the time was that it was
going to wreck my career, and he wasn't wrong, but the move worked out
very well for my wife, as we'd expected.

> Or likability.

They weren't into flattery. It involves lying, and while they
understood the short-term advantages of that kind of behaviour, they
also understood the more negative long term consequences. Whoever
encouraged you to shoot your mouth off about stuff that you don't know
much about wasn't doing you any kind of favour.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen