What are your unpopular opinions?
Discussion
Thesprucegoose said:
SlimJim16v said:
But they weren't watertight, I believe the top was open.
There was also the coal fire that had been burning since they left port, which weakened the steel.
how does that compare to other ship built at that time?There was also the coal fire that had been burning since they left port, which weakened the steel.
Coal fires in bunkers were common I believe, you pile up enough coal and it's hard to stop fires.
Another issue is that the steel used was pretty low grade and so shattered rather than bending on impact which increased the severity of the punctures. Not to mention a lack of double hull (double hulls were known about, but mostly just used on the bottom).
Most sinkings at the time were either due to the keel being scraped open in shallow water or through collisions which tended to hole just a small section. The Titanic had a reinforced keel and the watertight compartments would have saved the ship in a typical collision. So it's understandable that it was regarded as a very safe ship. The Olympic stayed in service for another 20 odd years so the design can't have been all that bad.
Also the number of lifeboats met the legal requirements at the time, so given that (IIRC) no fatal liner sinkings on the north Atlantic route had happened for many years it's understandable that this was regarded as sufficient for a larger but apparently safer ship.
Also remember that many of the lifeboats left with spare capacity so it's doubtful extra lifeboats would have made much difference.
Also the number of lifeboats met the legal requirements at the time, so given that (IIRC) no fatal liner sinkings on the north Atlantic route had happened for many years it's understandable that this was regarded as sufficient for a larger but apparently safer ship.
Also remember that many of the lifeboats left with spare capacity so it's doubtful extra lifeboats would have made much difference.
Dr Jekyll said:
Most sinkings at the time were either due to the keel being scraped open in shallow water or through collisions which tended to hole just a small section. The Titanic had a reinforced keel and the watertight compartments would have saved the ship in a typical collision. So it's understandable that it was regarded as a very safe ship. The Olympic stayed in service for another 20 odd years so the design can't have been all that bad.
Also the number of lifeboats met the legal requirements at the time, so given that (IIRC) no fatal liner sinkings on the north Atlantic route had happened for many years it's understandable that this was regarded as sufficient for a larger but apparently safer ship.
Also remember that many of the lifeboats left with spare capacity so it's doubtful extra lifeboats would have made much difference.
Adequate lifeboat capacity, proper staff emergency training and muster point practice (on cruises anyway) makes such a huge loss of life very unlikely today, barring a sudden catastrophic unforeseeable incident.Also the number of lifeboats met the legal requirements at the time, so given that (IIRC) no fatal liner sinkings on the north Atlantic route had happened for many years it's understandable that this was regarded as sufficient for a larger but apparently safer ship.
Also remember that many of the lifeboats left with spare capacity so it's doubtful extra lifeboats would have made much difference.
br d said:
AstonZagato said:
I unknowingly hired a vegan. When I found out, I phoned him to warn him that I shoot, the senior partner shoots and that we have a chef who prepares food for all our employees (but no veggie option). I didn't want him to feel excluded or walk in to a situation that made him uncomfortable.
He was super cool about it - he will eat meat if someone's guest and it is put in front of him. Only chooses to be vegan when it is within his control. Has no issue with shooting - much better on animal welfare than farming.
I was still a bit worried. But he was true to his word. Almost. Every day he orders the meatiest dish. Sitting in a restaurant in Paris he ordered foie gras and lamb. In a first class lounge in an airport he had pork chops followed by a hamburger. He eats more meat than most people I know!
Hello AZ. I really don't want to come across all contrary but this anecdote is redundant.He was super cool about it - he will eat meat if someone's guest and it is put in front of him. Only chooses to be vegan when it is within his control. Has no issue with shooting - much better on animal welfare than farming.
I was still a bit worried. But he was true to his word. Almost. Every day he orders the meatiest dish. Sitting in a restaurant in Paris he ordered foie gras and lamb. In a first class lounge in an airport he had pork chops followed by a hamburger. He eats more meat than most people I know!
Vegan refers to a very specific lifestyle that precludes eating animal products or causing unnecessary suffering, there's no grey area here. It's not like saying "I hired someone who says he likes pudding".
I'm not judging the bloke, he should certainly do whatever he likes and your description of him makes him sound like a decent person but, you know, he's not a vegan.
Blown2CV said:
or could just be the type of guy who is lining up a future constructive dismissal / unfair treatment law suit claiming that he was forced to eat meat and kill animals.
Hence the reason I called (and emailed) him before he started.Blown2CV said:
some part of me would actually welcome the zombie apocalypse. I think I could carve out a new niche as a bone-necklace wearing mad man. Also it gives the opportunity to start a new career without having to worry about income and mortgage....
So is it just a hobby at the moment.....?p4cks said:
I don't think the Titanic (the 'unsinkable' ship with a woeful number of lifeboats which then sank killing 1,500 people as opposed to the film) should get as much exposure as it does, or be as celebrated as it is.
It was a terrible, terrible piece of engineering and anyone associated with it should be embarrassed.
IIRC Titanic was built down to a price by a struggling contractor but the cause of her sinking was mostly a series of operational errors. Wrong route, too fast, bulkhead doors left open... and as somebody else has already said, she’d had a fire burning in her coal store for days which weakened one of her bulkheads. Many smaller ships made before the Titanic didn’t have watertight bulkheads at all and would’ve been much more vulnerable / sunk much faster. It was a terrible, terrible piece of engineering and anyone associated with it should be embarrassed.
I don't really understand why the Labour Party doesn't just start a proper public debate about whether Judaism (a religion) and/or Zionism (a political ideal) should be a protected characteristic like, for instance, the colour of your skin or gender is and hence whether or not criticism of either should be taboo or penalised.
Seems to me they're eating each other and chasing their tails over nothing much at all.
Seems to me they're eating each other and chasing their tails over nothing much at all.
Edited by FredClogs on Thursday 28th February 20:48
HustleRussell said:
p4cks said:
I don't think the Titanic (the 'unsinkable' ship with a woeful number of lifeboats which then sank killing 1,500 people as opposed to the film) should get as much exposure as it does, or be as celebrated as it is.
It was a terrible, terrible piece of engineering and anyone associated with it should be embarrassed.
IIRC Titanic was built down to a price by a struggling contractor but the cause of her sinking was mostly a series of operational errors. Wrong route, too fast, bulkhead doors left open... and as somebody else has already said, she’d had a fire burning in her coal store for days which weakened one of her bulkheads. Many smaller ships made before the Titanic didn’t have watertight bulkheads at all and would’ve been much more vulnerable / sunk much faster. It was a terrible, terrible piece of engineering and anyone associated with it should be embarrassed.
But to keep it brief, this is all so, so wrong.
Harland & Wolff was not 'struggling' by any measure. They and the White Star Line were highly profitable businesses with a 40-year relationship that had produced nothing but very successful ocean liners. H&W built all its ships for WSL on a cost-plus basis so had no incentive to skimp. Quite the opposite.
The Titanic was one of the safest civilian ship designs ever - in terms of her watertight subdivision she was significantly more comprehensive and safe that most modern cruise liners, which are usually designed to the 'two compartment rule.'
While, with hindsight, we can see that the design of the Titanic's bulkheads was not sufficient for the situation she found herself in, you have to remember that WSL were designing a civilian passenger liner, not a battleship. You can make the hull of your ship a warren of watertight bulkheads, decks, doors and hatches but the passengers aren't going to like it and you're preparing for a one-in-a-million eventuality. An eventuality which Titanic came upon on her maiden voyage.
Titanic's hull was open to sea along nearly 300 feet of hull length (although the actual damage area was only around 12 square feet). She went down in just under 2.5 hours on an even keel, breaking her back in the final minutes. That is not the behaviour of a badly-designed or flawed ship. Consider how quickly the Lusitania (with 'superior' Admiralty-spec watertight divisions) or the Britannic went down, and how they did so.
The bunker fire is a red-herring. It had no bearing on the sinking beyond, possibly, causing a bulkhead to partially fail a few minutes earlier than it would otherwise have done. And even that is a matter of great debate. In all likelyhood it is a non-event.
FredClogs said:
I don't really understand why the Labour Party doesn't just start a proper public debate about whether Judaism (a religion) and/or Zionism (a political ideal) should be a protected characteristic like, for instance, the colour of your skin or gender is and hence whether or not criticism of either should be taboo or penalised.
Seems to me they're eating each other and chasing their tails over nothing much at all.
Israel has pulled a fast one, comparable to our travelling friends and is royally taking the piss. Using the ultimate PC defence, anti semitism, at the drop of a hat. Seems to me they're eating each other and chasing their tails over nothing much at all.
I doubt there are any more or less anti semites in Labour than any other party.
OpulentBob said:
Thanks. That's very interesting reading. Is it from a specific source or your abridged knowledge? Would be interested to read more.
Abridged knowledge learnt from many sources over the years, I'm afraid. Have a browse through the research articles on Encyclopedia Titanica ( https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/titanic-rese... ) and the message boards on that site - especially the Technical/Construction/Design and Collision/Sinking sub-forums.
The book "101 Things You Thought You Knew About The Titanic...But Didn't" by Tim Maltin and Eloise Aston is a very good, readable summary of the current state of Titanic academia and very clearly seperates the popular myth from the historical reality, as far as we can tell at present.
"The Last Log of the Titanic" by David G. Brown is, IMO, one of the best tellings and analysis of the events of the actual sinking, based on a huge amount of historical research.
This article - http://wormstedt.com/Titanic/Fire_And_Ice.html - offers a good reality-check on the bunker fire (largely in response to the over-hyped and bordering-on-fiction Channel 4 'documentary' a while back).
SlimJim16v said:
Israel has pulled a fast one, comparable to our travelling friends and is royally taking the piss. Using the ultimate PC defence, anti semitism, at the drop of a hat.
I doubt there are any more or less anti semites in Labour than any other party.
I heard a caller on LBC trying to sell the term 'AfriPhobic' the other day. I doubt there are any more or less anti semites in Labour than any other party.
Everyone is trying to establish ways of throwing around words to single out their own culture as victims.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff