forums

Off-Topic Titanic tour sub missing

OriginalCanesCanesCanes said:
I agree with everything, except may be that there should be law part. One thing that we have to remember is that I’m pretty sure this is out in international waters, and secondly, to make a law for such a unique and one in 1 billion occurrence, I just don’t know. I mean it’s not like anybody’s going to try this particular thing again
Click to expand...
By law ... I meant engineering certification requirements for subs carrying paying passengers. James Cameron is part owner of a company that builds submarines for tour groups and submersibles for research ... and they are built to specs and certified. Cameron has visited the Titanic 33 times with no issues. Tourist subs are generally used at depths that that divers can submerge to ...not real high risk. Rush was trying to develop a commercial track record with his sub in order to be able to sell to the gas and oil rig companies. They would NOT purchase experimental equipment, only equipment with a proven track record of use (Rush's words from an interview).
 
Advertisement
rsa coral gables said:
i agree with you, but what i am trying to say is that their being rich is irrelevant to the cause of their death and that not everything needs to be filtered through race, gender or economic class!
Click to expand...

1. You should have simply said that instead of making absurd comparisons and overbroad statements about what "everyone" is doing.

2. You injected class into this discussion. My straightforward comment was: "Play crazy expensive, insanely stupid games, win catastrophic and horrifically stupid prizes." It is a play on a well-known conditional statement, altered to denote my perceived correlation between the increased expense of a foolish endeavor and the degree of the ensuing catastrophe. Somehow this sent you down the path of the perils of classism, "mocking people for being rich," Cuban rafters "essentially" engaging in similar conduct, and Marxism. My comment raised none of those issues.

3. The only comment in this thread that could even arguably be ascribed as raising "class" issues prior to your post was "rich people be crazy." You "liked" that post two days ago.

1687541532061.png


Be consistent, be real, and be well.
 
Advertisement
rsa coral gables said:
true, but everyone is making this a class issue and mocking these rich people. the idiocy isn´t that they were rich, but that they exercised poor judgment. do we mock cuban rafters who essentially do the same? everything today has to be be about race, gender or economic class. this is marxism at its best.
Click to expand...


I'm not going to touch the Mariel comment, but I will address the linkage between the wealth and the idiocy.

It's one thing to be stupid because you don't have the knowledge. That kind of "idiocy" is understandable.

It's something quite different for a guy who inherited money and has spent a lifetime trying to be a thrill-seeker (wanted to be an astronaut, etc.) who has all the knowledge at his disposal and then rejects it, while subsituting his own dismissiveness and arrogance and rationales for cost-cutting and safety-shirking.

Here's the reality. In his pursuit to make "staring at the Titanic" affordable to the masses, he ended up costing a bunch of countries millions of taxpayer dollars for the week-long search for his dead body. There are valid reasons to have safety standards for such an endeavor, and it's not to "stifle innovation". You want to innovate a cheaper way to make a pizza, knock yourself out. But a "cheaper" way to go into the ocean 13,000 feet down and potentially involve dozens of ships in a nearly-impossible recovery mission?

Yeah, **** innovation. And **** "cheap trips to see the Titanic".
 
TheOriginalCane said:
I'm not going to touch the Mariel comment, but I will address the linkage between the wealth and the idiocy.

It's one thing to be stupid because you don't have the knowledge. That kind of "idiocy" is understandable.

It's something quite different for a guy who inherited money and has spent a lifetime trying to be a thrill-seeker (wanted to be an astronaut, etc.) who has all the knowledge at his disposal and then rejects it, while subsituting his own dismissiveness and arrogance and rationales for cost-cutting and safety-shirking.

Here's the reality. In his pursuit to make "staring at the Titanic" affordable to the masses, he ended up costing a bunch of countries millions of taxpayer dollars for the week-long search for his dead body. There are valid reasons to have safety standards for such an endeavor, and it's not to "stifle innovation". You want to innovate a cheaper way to make a pizza, knock yourself out. But a "cheaper" way to go into the ocean 13,000 feet down and potentially involve dozens of ships in a nearly-impossible recovery mission?

Yeah, **** innovation. And **** "cheap trips to see the Titanic".
Click to expand...
I'm developing a new style re-breather made from off the shelf tupperwear and bonzai plants. My goal is to hit 15,000 ft.

Who wants in on ground floor of this exciting investment opportunity?

The industry can't handle the disruption our vision will bring.
 
Advertisement
OriginalCanesCanesCanes said:
I agree with everything, except may be that there should be law part. One thing that we have to remember is that I’m pretty sure this is out in international waters, and secondly, to make a law for such a unique and one in 1 billion occurrence, I just don’t know. I mean it’s not like anybody’s going to try this particular thing again
Click to expand...
I agree that no new laws are needed over this.

But I question what you said about how nobody will try this again following such a catastrophic failure. I mean, people keep trying Marxism, so…
 
Empirical Cane said:
I'm developing a new style re-breather made from off the shelf tupperwear and bonzai plants. My goal is to hit 15,000 ft.

Who wants in on ground floor of this exciting investment opportunity?

The industry can't handle the disruption our vision will bring.
Click to expand...


I'm only investing if you send me a liability waiver that mentions "death" 8 times, including 3 times on the first page...
 
Advertisement
Empirical Cane said:
I'm developing a new style re-breather made from off the shelf tupperwear and bonzai plants. My goal is to hit 15,000 ft.

Who wants in on ground floor of this exciting investment opportunity?

The industry can't handle the disruption our vision will bring.
Click to expand...

I have a top-flight banana peel resin fiber guy that I use for all my bullet proof vests if you need one.
 
Advertisement
Rickd said:
By law ... I meant engineering certification requirements for subs carrying paying passengers. James Cameron is part owner of a company that builds submarines for tour groups and submersibles for research ... and they are built to specs and certified. Cameron has visited the Titanic 33 times with no issues. Tourist subs are generally used at depths that that divers can submerge to ...not real high risk. Rush was trying to develop a commercial track record with his sub in order to be able to sell to the gas and oil rig companies. They would NOT purchase experimental equipment, only equipment with a proven track record of use (Rush's words from an interview).
Click to expand...
Any idea who does the "certification" you mention? A USG agency? Private engineering body?
 
How horrible:

The 19-year-old university student accompanying his father on the expedition expressed hesitation about going, his aunt said in an interview Thursday.

Azmeh Dawood told NBC News that her nephew, Suleman, informed a relative that he "wasn't very up for it" and felt "terrified" about the trip to explore the wreckage of the Titanic.

Still, the youing man ended up going aboard because the trip fell over Father's Day weekend and he was eager to please his dad, who was passionate about the trip.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top