Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

A Sea Story: the Wreck of the Replica HMS Bounty

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the all-i-ask-is-a-tall-ship-and-oh-god-waves dept.

Transportation 184

An anonymous reader writes "On October 25, 2012, as residents of the U.S. east coast made frantic preparations for the arrival of Hurricane Sandy, the captain of the HMS Bounty (a replica tall ship constructed fifty years earlier for the Marlon Brando film Mutiny on the Bounty) made a foolish decision, with the assent of his crew, to proceed with a scheduled voyage from New London, CT for St. Petersburg FL. CNN's Thom Patterson has written a long story with the benefit of survivor testimony to the NTSB and U.S. Coast Guard. Captain Robin Walbridge thought he could outrun the hurricane, and besides, he'd 'sailed into hurricanes before.' The crew (officially there were no passengers, a fact that allowed the ship to evade certain safety regulations) consisted of tall ship enthusiasts with widely varying amounts of nautical experience, perhaps taken by the vast historical literature on the great age of sailing. A day and a half into the voyage, Captain Walbridge altered his plan of sailing east of the storm, to sailing south and west of it. A day later, the Bounty was less than 200 miles from the eye of the storm; the engine room started to flood, and the pumps were jammed with debris being torn off by the storm's 70 mph winds. The end came early next day, the Bounty was knocked down by a huge wave, tossing the captain and several crew members overboard. The Coast Guard rescued fourteen of the crew members, but Claudene Christian (an adventure-loving novice who had enlisted as crew a few months before) was dead, and Captain Walbridge's body has not been found."

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Epitath (0)

techno-vampire (666512) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321503)

"Here lies Captain Robin Walbridge, lost at sea and never found."

the Jews took my baby (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43321761)

4 out of 5 dogs over the age of 3 have gun disease - daily DENTAstix \

I've come into BSG as an avid, die-hard Firefly fan, and up until after Resurrection Ship, Part 2 it was blowing my mind with each consecutive episode, but the few ones that followed somehow left me dissatisfied. Then this song comes up in Lay Down Your Burdens, Part 1, and I feel something GREAT is coming, and I'm once again looking forward to continuing watching the series, and I do hope it lives up to my expectations, and to Your statement!
You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!

We have seen thee, queen of cheese,
Lying quietly at your ease,
Gently fanned by evening breeze,
Thy fair form no flies dare seize.

All gaily dressed soon you'll go
To the great Provincial show,
To be admired by many a beau
In the city of Toronto.

Cows numerous as a swarm of bees,
Or as the leaves upon the trees,
It did require to make thee please.
And stand unrivalled, queen of cheese.

May you not receive a scar as
We have heard that Mr. Harris
Intends to to send you off as far as
The great world's show at Paris.

Of the youth beware of these,
For some of them might rudely squeeze
And bite your cheek, then songs or glees
We could not sing, oh! queen of cheese.

We'rt thou suspended from balloon,
You'd cast a shade even at noon,
Folks would think it was the moon
About to fall and crush them soon.

Thankyou for reading at -1

Re:Epitath (5, Interesting)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#43322215)

I cannot be sure how seaworthy the Bounty was. I never saw it, except in photos or video. Photos and videos don't really tell much - a guy needs to get into the woodwork, study everything above and below the waterline to decide something like that.

But, I propose that the ship went down due to inept seamanship.

Debris clogged the bilge pumps? Really? I heard over the ship's loudspeakers, many times during five years of sea duty, "Secure for heavy seas. Secure all missile hazards." Seamen and Petty Officers would go to work, making certain that heavy objects were bolted down, lashed down, chocked, or whatever. Chiefs and officers would come around, inspecting, searching for even small objects that might be free to go flying, possibly putting an eye out. Yes, even pens and pencils were secured. Personal property was stowed in a locker, that locker bolted to the deck, where it had withstood many another day of heavy seas. The ONLY missile hazards permissible, were the bodies of your ship mates!

You got shit clogging the bilge pumps - you're gonna die, simple as that. The most seaworthy of ships is always taking on water, even on calm days, or in port. The crew gets an idea of how much, pretty quickly. Tied up to a pier, they may have to pump a hundred gallons of water out every month, on a smaller ship. On a huge naval ship, they'll get that much condensation!

FTFA: The engine room itself worried Bounty's newly hired engineer, Chris Barksdale. He thought it needed a good cleaning. Sawdust and wood chips littered the floor. Everything just looked old.

That sawdust and wood chips is more than enough to spell the Bounty's doom. It doesn't take much to choke the impellor of a bilge pump. A chip the size of a small person's thumb is sufficient. Strainers help, but strainers can be choked as well.

FTFA: Below deck, crew members suffered from seasickness. In the galley, the motion pulled tables from their hinges.

Definitely not good - the article repeatedly mentions rotting wood. Someone should have been aware that the tables weren't securely fastened down. What of all the rest of the ship's equipment?

FTFA: Wood chips and sawdust from the dirty floor were floating in the rising water and clogging the pumps. They had to be shut off constantly to clear the strainers. Scornavacchi and Adam Prokosh used trash bags – and their bare hands – to scoop debris.
As the scramble to pump water off the ship grew more desperate, deckhand Mark Warner smashed the engine room door open so he could move a portable gasoline powered pump up to the deck.
But the pump wouldn't work. According to testimony, no one had been trained to use it.
Around 7 p.m., one of the ship's two generators failed.

At this point, the ship is dead. She can only take on more water, and sink lower into the water, becoming ever more unresponsive to the crew's input.

Inept seamanship killed the Bounty, plain and simple. The Captain and First Mate failed to do their jobs in preparing for sea, the crew failed, and the ship died. The ship was missing a slave driving Boatswain's Mate to drive the crew into performing the proper preparations.

Thank God that the Navy has those knuckle dragging Deck Apes to ensure that Navy ships don't founder in the same way!

Re:Epitath (4, Insightful)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about a year and a half ago | (#43322315)

They also appear to have foundered earlier than necessary because they lost power. As my sailing instructor drilled into us, you're in a sailboat. The engines are auxiliaries. Being beam on to the sea in a storm is not a happy situation, and, in a sailing ship, having your engines die isn't a good reason for it.

The captain sounds like an irresponsible thrill seeker, and the crew, although they were all supposedly experienced sailors, does seem to have neglected a lot. The article implies throughout that it was some kind of hero worship.

Re:Epitath (4, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#43322631)

I've looked at the decision to leave port. I can't really fault that. Navy captains routinely make that same decision. The Coast Guard, likewise.

The decision to turn south and west to follow the storm seems somewhat less responsible. But, again, Navy and Coast Guard captains do it, with reason.

The captain's failure in this instance centers around housekeeping and seaworthiness. If the ship not truly seaworthy, if housekeeping is a threat to that seaworthiness, then the captain must rectify the situation, or refrain from going to sea and/or chasing that storm. This captain chose to run his ship close to it's extreme performance parameters, despite the fact that the ship wasn't "ship shape".

Re:Epitath (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | about a year and a half ago | (#43322369)

Thank God that the Navy has those knuckle dragging Deck Apes to ensure that Navy ships don't founder in the same way!

Yup! I wasn't a Deck Ape, but I spent my fair share of time lashing things down and making sure they stayed secure back when I was in the Navy. Just because the crew isn't properly trained is no excuse for the officers not seeing to it that things are properly ship-shape!

Re:Epitath (4, Insightful)

drnb (2434720) | about a year and a half ago | (#43322587)

Just because the crew isn't properly trained is no excuse for the officers not seeing to it that things are properly ship-shape!

If a crew member is not properly trained it is the officer's responsibility to quickly remedy that. It doesn't matter if the crew member is paid or a volunteer. You go to sea, you learn to do your job properly, period.

Navy regulations are written in blood (5, Insightful)

drnb (2434720) | about a year and a half ago | (#43322557)

Sawdust and wood chips littered the floor ... Thank God that the Navy has those knuckle dragging Deck Apes to ensure that Navy ships don't founder in the same way!

My uncle was a carpenter. I never saw sawdust or wood chips on his workshop floor unless he was in the middle of cutting or drilling.

Of course in his youth he was in the Navy, destroyers, WW2. When I asked what he did he said that they maintained the ship and its equipment, cleaned the ship and its equipment, and drilled for damage control and battle. He added that on occasion they were allowed to eat or sleep and that on very rare occasions they went into battle (Pacific, '42-'45, over a dozen battle stars).

He told me he learned to immediately take care of the smallest things when he was in the Navy. That the saying "Navy regs are written in blood" is true, that many regs are the way they are because someone died doing things differently. Given the unforgiving nature of the sea I'm surprised the professional civilian sailors (officers of the Bounty at least) did not understand that sloppiness can get you killed at sea.

Not sure I understand (0, Offtopic)

Gothmolly (148874) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321531)

Why this is "News for Nerds" ?

Re:Not sure I understand (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43321549)

Way old news, at that! Interesting story, but long reported...

Re:Not sure I understand (4, Funny)

b5bartender (2175066) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321639)

...because they were rescued only after a last-ditch effort to call for help by rigging a ham radio to send an e-mail to their home office?

Re:Not sure I understand (1)

ewanm89 (1052822) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321667)

Urm, if they had that kind of radio equipment a standard mayday call on marine VHF channel 16 (156.8MHz) FM is all that is needed.

Re:Not sure I understand (4, Informative)

msauve (701917) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321721)

I know it's not considered proper to read the article before commenting, but since the GP did, you should have, too.

The ship's high frequency radio: no response.

Bounty's satellite phone: no response.

Finally, electrician Doug Faunt rigged a ham radio to send and receive e-mail. They e-mailed Bounty's home office, which in turn contacted the Coast Guard at 9 p.m. The crew learned a Coast Guard C-130 search aircraft was heading toward the Bounty.

If you knew as much as you think you do, you'd know that marine VHF is good for a maximum range about 110 km, with antennas at both ends mounted high and good conditions. The Bounty sank about 100 miles (160 km) offshore. There weren't a lot of other ships to contact in the area of the hurricane, I'd guess.

Re:Not sure I understand (0)

icebike (68054) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321775)

Your own quote mentioned HF radio, not VHF.

If you knew half as much as you thing you do, you would know that HF radios can cover thousands of miles.

Re:Not sure I understand (5, Informative)

msauve (701917) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321859)

I wasn't the one who brought up VHF, which wouldn't have helped, as the GP's flippant "use channel 16" claimed.

The article makes clear that their efforts to communicate using their marine radio were unsuccessful, while using the ham radio (almost certainly HF) worked.

BTW, I have an Extra class ham license, and am well aware of the capabilities and limitations of the various bands.

Re:Not sure I understand (1)

Rich0 (548339) | about a year and a half ago | (#43322063)

I'm a bit surprised that there aren't stations monitoring HF for emergency broadcasts. Aircraft still use HF for oceanic communications, and ships spend far more time out at sea. In heavy storms I'd expect satellite communications to be much less reliable than HF. Granted, aircraft mostly use digital transmissions these days, but they still have HF for backup, and I believe they do routinely check in on HF to make sure they have contact with each station along the way.

But, the whole voyage seemed to be a story of bad planning, so not having made plans for long-range communications before sailing far out into the ocean is just one more bad decision on the road to disaster.

Re:Not sure I understand (4, Informative)

msauve (701917) | about a year and a half ago | (#43322101)

I'm a bit surprised that there aren't stations monitoring HF for emergency broadcasts.

There are. [] It doesn't do any good if the radio doesn't work, or the antenna blew down, though.

Re:Not sure I understand (1)

Rich0 (548339) | about a year and a half ago | (#43322153)

Well, if the radio didn't work, they couldn't use it to send emails.

It seems likely that somebody brought an HF to send email back to base, and that they weren't aware of how to contact the coast card via HF.

Then again, digital protocols are more robust - maybe if things weren't working right (lost antenna, etc) they could get out enough signal to send the email but not enough for voice. That website you listed doesn't mention any stations monitoring for morse code - that seems like a bit of an omission as you can transmit morse with very little in the way of working hardware and it would be almost as robust as a digital link.

Re:Not sure I understand (1)

msauve (701917) | about a year and a half ago | (#43322279)

Well, if the radio didn't work, they couldn't use it to send emails.

There's a difference between the marine radio they had on board, and the ham radio. Ham radios generally don't cover the marine bands, at least for transmitting. You really should read the article to understand what happened.

Re:Not sure I understand (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43322349)

Morse is actually more robust than digital if you don't count the modulation schemes designed to be demodulated wen they are under the noise level (if you use a digital demodulator for the Morse it can even be detected at lower snr ratios than with an analog demodulator). Actually digital is not more robust than analog in most cases, for example is possible to hear in HF a understandable radio broadcast in analog with signals lower and with lower quality than the minimum needed to hear it in digital using a DRM ( receiver.

Re:Not sure I understand (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43321869)

If you knew as much as you think you do, you'd know that marine VHF is good for a maximum range about 110 km.

What's the maximum range of the sat devices that failed mr. know it all?

Re:Not sure I understand (0, Flamebait)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321767)

Why this is "News for Nerds" ?

"Argh, Matey's! Thirty days at sea, and not a wench to be seen!"

"Grease up the monkey!"

Because the Bounty was the victim of Pirates after the cargo of Bitcoins bound for North Korea's Fearless Leader Kim Chi, to fund his Cyber-War against Facebook on his Nokia Windows 8 Phone over Spamhaus DDOSing his Laser Fusion project to power Egypt's Internet Cable used to transfer Google Patents for banning Amazon meat . . . ("huh, huh . . . he said 'meat'") . . . , which is causing IT Admin Stress, to which Fearless Leader Obama answered, "I fart on North Korea's puny war plans. So thin are they, that I dare not wipe my ass with them, lest my fingers shall be soiled!", which further . . .

. . . and . . .

can YOU answer my questions for me then? apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43321535)

Don Newton (probably Thor Schrock himself, or a pal of his, no doubt), can YOU answer my questions for me then?

See, little "FYI" for you:

Thor S. here has been "trashing" me, by listing a ware I wrote years ago as a "malware" on some list he maintains!

(& he won't answer any questions, because honestly?? I think Thor Schrock is another "wannabe" w/ out a degree in this field, much less years to decades of actual hands on experience in it is why - else, why avoid simple questions like these?)

Thor S. apparently doesn't have a clue really, & only "spits back what others state" online, & with no real thought or analysis of his own - otherwise, he could answer my questions, in a split second, period.

Case in point:

My ware has NO harmfulness to it, whatsoever, in & of itself/by itself (what users do with it however? That nobody can control)

So, thus my question to Thor Schrock - I wonder, does he list PING.EXE or psexec.exe?? They are BOTH capable of destructive uses also.


Again - Where on earth did Thor Schrock get his data from & how did he make his decision here on why to list my ware as a malware?

He won't answer, because it will implicate his sources (or, himself) in libelling myself. That's ok, I can use that type of resistance to my advantage, eventually, & mark my words, I will.

No, Thor Schrock & CA will be in for a surprise eventually I would say...

Put it THIS way:

I am doing as I was instructed by legal counsel in fact, & pursuing this with CA, for now, playing by "their rules" - like they are the "lords of the internet", lol, far FROM it in fact!

E.G.-> Overall, their 'security suite'?


I.E./E.G.-> They were taken out of my place of employ in fact, because of the problems in the mail filters, & oddly, lol, Mr. Greg Jensen the product mgr. for it @ CA even said my mails were caught in that faulty piece of junk - funny part is? The company I referred to?? Is a reseller/partner of CA's... lol, & WE didn't even want to use their stuff!)


P.S.=> CA has been listing my ware online as a malware since 2004, & under a DIFFERENT name than my own, using my middle name, so I would not find it online in that timeframe... they're trash, imo, for that alone.

(Also - CA too won't divulge their sources when asked either, or answer the same questions I asked Thor here above)

I wonder, was it Thor Schrock they got their info. from?

Be silent, but time's on MY side... apk

This is obviously not me... apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43321831)

A corrupt slashdot luser has infiltrated the moderation system to downmod all my posts while impersonating me.

Nearly 180++ times that I know of @ this point for all of March 2013 so far, & others here have told you to stop - take the hint, lunatic (leave slashdot)...

Sorry folks - but whoever the nutjob is that's attempting to impersonate me, & upset the rest of you as well, has SERIOUS mental issues, no questions asked! I must've gotten the better of him + seriously "gotten his goat" in doing so in a technical debate & his "geek angst" @ losing to me has him doing the:


A.) $10,000 challenges, ala (where the imposter actually TRACKED + LISTED the # of times he's done this no less, & where I get the 180 or so times I noted above) -> []


B.) Reposting OLD + possibly altered models - (this I haven't checked on as to altering the veracity of the info. being changed) of posts of mine from the past here


(Albeit massively repeatedly thru all threads on /. this March 2013 nearly in its entirety thusfar).

* Personally, I'm surprised the moderation staff here hasn't just "blocked out" his network range yet honestly!

(They know it's NOT the same as my own as well, especially after THIS post of mine, which they CAN see the IP range I am coming out of to compare with the ac spamming troll doing the above...).


P.S.=> Again/Stressing it: NO guys - it is NOT me doing it, as I wouldn't waste that much time on such trivial b.s. like a kid might...

Plus, I only post where hosts file usage is on topic or appropriate for a solution & certainly NOT IN EVERY POST ON SLASHDOT (like the nutcase trying to "impersonate me" is doing for nearly all of March now, & 180++ times that I know of @ least)... apk

P.S.=> here is CORRECT host file information just to piss off the insane lunatic troll:


21++ ADVANTAGES OF CUSTOM HOSTS FILES (how/what/when/where/why):

Over AdBlock & DNS Servers ALONE 4 Security, Speed, Reliability, & Anonymity (to an extent vs. DNSBL's + DNS request logs).

1.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program). A truly "multi-platform" UNIVERSAL solution for added speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity to an extent (vs. DNS request logs + DNSBL's you feel are unjust hosts get you past/around).

2.) Adblock blocks ads? Well, not anymore & certainly not as well by default, apparently, lol - see below:

Adblock Plus To Offer 'Acceptable Ads' Option [] )

AND, in only browsers & their subprogram families (ala email like Thunderbird for FireFox/Mozilla products (use same gecko & xulrunner engines)), but not all, or, all independent email clients, like Outlook, Outlook Express, OR Window "LIVE" mail (for example(s)) - there's many more like EUDORA & others I've used over time that AdBlock just DOES NOT COVER... period.

Disclaimer: Opera now also has an AdBlock addon (now that Opera has addons above widgets), but I am not certain the same people make it as they do for FF or Chrome etc..

3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF (non-mozilla/gecko engine based) family based wares, So AdBlock doesn't protect email programs like Outlook, Outlook Express, Windows "LIVE" mail & others like them (EUDORA etc./et al), Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.

4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 5-7 next below).

5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, OR make you reach them faster since you resolve host-domain names LOCALLY w/ hosts out of cached memory, hosts do ALL of those things (DNS servers are also being abused by the Chinese lately and by the Kaminsky flaw -> [] for years now). Hosts protect against those problems via hardcodes of your fav sites (you should verify against the TLD that does nothing but cache IPAddress-to-domainname/hostname resolutions ( via NSLOOKUP, PINGS (ping -a in Windows), &/or WHOIS though, regularly, so you have the correct IP & it's current)).

* NOW - Some folks MAY think that putting an IP address alone into your browser's address bar will be enough, so why bother with HOSTS, right? WRONG - Putting IP address in your browser won't always work IS WHY. Some IP adresses host several domains & need the site name to give you the right page you're after is why. So for some sites only the HOSTS file option will work!

6.) Hosts files don't eat up CPU cycles (or ELECTRICITY) like AdBlock does while it parses a webpages' content, nor as much as a DNS server does while it runs. HOSTS file are merely a FILTER for the kernel mode/PnP TCP/IP subsystem, which runs FAR FASTER & MORE EFFICIENTLY than any ring 3/rpl3/usermode app can since hosts files run in MORE EFFICIENT & FASTER Ring 0/RPL 0/Kernelmode operations acting merely as a filter for the IP stack (via the "Plug-N-Play" designed IP stack in Windows) vs. SLOWER & LESS EFFICIENT Ring 3/RPL 3/Usermode operations (which webbrowsers run in + their addons like AdBlock slow down even MORESO due to their parsing operations).

7.) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR faster than remote DNS servers can by FAR (by saving the roundtrip inquiry time to a DNS server, typically 30-100's of ms, vs. 7-10ms HardDisk speed of access/seek + SSD seek in ns, & back to you - hosts resolutions of IP address for host-domain names is FAR faster...). Hosts are only a filter for an already fast & efficient IP stack, no more layered b.s. (remote OR local). Hosts eat less CPU, RAM, I/O in other forms, + electricity than a locally running DNS server easily, and less than a local DNS program on a single PC. Fact. Hosts are easier to setup & maintain too.

8.) AdBlock doesn't let you block out known bad sites or servers that are known to be maliciously scripted, hosts can and many reputable lists for this exist:

Spybot "Search & Destroy" IMMUNIZE feature (fortifies HOSTS files with KNOWN bad servers blocked)

And yes: Even SLASHDOT &/or The Register help!

(Via articles on security (when the source articles they use are "detailed" that is, & list the servers/sites involved in attempting to bushwhack others online that is... not ALL do!)).

2 examples thereof in the past I have used, & noted it there, are/were: [] []

9.) AdBlock & DNS servers are programs, and subject to bugs programs can get. Hosts files are merely a filter and not a program, thus not subject to bugs of the nature just discussed.

10.) HOSTS files protect you vs. DNS-poisoning &/or the Kaminsky flaw in DNS servers, and allow you to get to sites reliably vs. things like the Chinese are doing to DNS -> []

11.) HOSTS files are EASILY user controlled, obtained (for reliable ones -> [] ) & edited too, via texteditors like Windows notepad.exe or Linux nano (etc.)

12.) With Adblock you had better be able to code javascript to play with its code (to customize it better than the GUI front does @ least). With hosts you don't even need source to control it (edit, update, delete, insert of new entries via a text editor).

13.) Hosts files are easily secured via using MAC/ACL (even moreso "automagically" for Vista, 7/Server 2008 + beyond by UAC by default) &/or Read-Only attributes applied.

14.) Custom HOSTS files also speed you up, unlike anonymous proxy servers systems variations (like TOR, or other "highly anonymous" proxy server list servers typically do, in the severe speed hit they often have a cost in) either via "hardcoding" your fav. sites into your hosts file (avoids DNS servers, totally) OR blocking out adbanners - see this below for evidence of that:


US Military Blocks Websites To Free Up Bandwidth: []

(Yes, even the US Military used this type of technique... because IT WORKS! Most of what they blocked? Ad banners ala doubleclick etc.)


Adbanners slow you down & consume your bandwidth YOU pay for:



And people do NOT LIKE ads on the web:



As well as this:

Users Know Advertisers Watch Them, and Hate It: []


Even WORSE still, is this:

Advertising Network Caught History Stealing: []


15.) HOSTS files usage lets you avoid being charged on some ISP/BSP's (OR phone providers) "pay as you use" policy [] , because you are using less bandwidth (& go faster doing so no less) by NOT hauling in adbanner content and processing it (which can lead to infestation by malware/malicious script, in & of itself -> [] ).

16.) If/when ISP/BSP's decide to go to -> FCC Approving Pay-As-You-Go Internet Plans: [] your internet bill will go DOWN if you use a HOSTS file for blocking adbanners as well as maliciously scripted hacker/cracker malware maker sites too (after all - it's your money & time online downloading adbanner content & processing it)

Plus, your adbanner content? Well, it may also be hijacked with malicious code too mind you:


Yahoo, Microsoft's Bing display toxic ads: []


Malware torrent delivered over Google, Yahoo! ad services: []


Google's DoubleClick spreads malicious ads (again): []


Rogue ads infiltrate Expedia and Rhapsody: []


Google sponsored links caught punting malware: []


DoubleClick caught supplying malware-tainted ads: []


Yahoo feeds Trojan-laced ads to MySpace and PhotoBucket users: []


Real Media attacks real people via RealPlayer: []


Ad networks owned by Google, Microsoft serve malware: []


Attacks Targeting Classified Ad Sites Surge: []


Hackers Respond To Help Wanted Ads With Malware: []


Hackers Use Banner Ads on Major Sites to Hijack Your PC: []


Ruskie gang hijacks Microsoft network to push penis pills: []


Major ISPs Injecting Ads, Vulnerabilities Into Web: []


Two Major Ad Networks Found Serving Malware: []












London Stock Exchange Web Site Serving Malware: []


Spotify splattered with malware-tainted ads: []


As my list "multiple evidences thereof" as to adbanners & viruses + the fact they slow you down & cost you more (from reputable & reliable sources no less)).

17.) Per point #16, a way to save some money: ANDROID phones can also use the HOSTS FILE TO KEEP DOWN BILLABLE TIME ONLINE, vs. adbanners or malware such as this:


Infected Androids Run Up Big Texting Bills: []


AND, for protection vs. other "botnets" migrating from the PC world, to "smartphones" such as ZITMO (a ZEUS botnet variant): []


It's easily done too, via the ADB dev. tool, & mounting ANDROID OS' system mountpoint for system/etc as READ + WRITE/ADMIN-ROOT PERMISSIONS, then copying your new custom HOSTS over the old one using ADB PULL/ADB PUSH to do so (otherwise ANDROID complains of "this file cannot be overwritten on production models of this Operating System", or something very along those lines - this way gets you around that annoyance along with you possibly having to clear some space there yourself if you packed it with things!).

18.) Bad news: ADBLOCK CAN BE DETECTED FOR: See here on that note -> []

HOSTS files are NOT THAT EASILY "webbug" BLOCKABLE by websites, as was tried on users by ARSTECHNICA (and it worked on AdBlock in that manner), to that websites' users' dismay:



An experiment gone wrong - By Ken Fisher | Last updated March 6, 2010 11:11 AM []

"Starting late Friday afternoon we conducted a 12 hour experiment to see if it would be possible to simply make content disappear for visitors who were using a very popular ad blocking tool. Technologically, it was a success in that it worked. Ad blockers, and only ad blockers, couldn't see our content."


"Our experiment is over, and we're glad we did it because it led to us learning that we needed to communicate our point of view every once in a while. Sure, some people told us we deserved to die in a fire. But that's the Internet!"

Thus, as you can see? Well - THAT all "went over like a lead balloon" with their users in other words, because Arstechnica was forced to change it back to the old way where ADBLOCK still could work to do its job (REDDIT however, has not, for example). However/Again - this is proof that HOSTS files can still do the job, blocking potentially malscripted ads (or ads in general because they slow you down) vs. adblockers like ADBLOCK!


19.) Even WIKILEAKS "favors" blacklists (because they work, and HOSTS can be a blacklist vs. known BAD sites/servers/domain-host names):



"we are in favour of 'Blacklists', be it for mail servers or websites, they have to be compiled with care... Fortunately, more responsible blacklists, like (which protects the Firefox browser)...


20.) AND, LASTLY? SINCE MALWARE GENERALLY HAS TO OPERATE ON WHAT YOU YOURSELF CAN DO (running as limited class/least privlege user, hopefully, OR even as ADMIN/ROOT/SUPERUSER)? HOSTS "LOCK IN" malware too, vs. communicating "back to mama" for orders (provided they have name servers + C&C botnet servers listed in them, blocked off in your HOSTS that is) - you might think they use a hardcoded IP, which IS possible, but generally they do not & RECYCLE domain/host names they own (such as has been seen with the RBN (Russian Business Network) lately though it was considered "dead", other malwares are using its domains/hostnames now, & this? This stops that cold, too - Bonus!)...

21.) Custom HOSTS files gain users back more "screen real estate" by blocking out banner ads... it's great on PC's for speed along with MORE of what I want to see/read (not ads), & efficiency too, but EVEN BETTER ON SMARTPHONES - by far. It matters MOST there imo @ least, in regards to extra screen real-estate.

Still - It's a GOOD idea to layer in the usage of BOTH browser addons for security like adblock ( [] ), IE 9's new TPL's ( [] ), &/or NoScript ( [] especially this one, as it covers what HOSTS files can't in javascript which is the main deliverer of MOST attacks online & SECUNIA.COM can verify this for anyone really by looking @ the past few years of attacks nowadays), for the concept of "layered security"....

It's just that HOSTS files offer you a LOT MORE gains than Adblock ( [] ) does alone (as hosts do things adblock just plain cannot & on more programs, for more speed, security, and "stealth" to a degree even), and it corrects problems in DNS (as shown above via hardcodes of your favorite sites into your HOSTS file, and more (such as avoiding DNS request logs)).

ALSO - Some more notes on DNS servers & their problems, very recent + ongoing ones:


DNS flaw reanimates slain evil sites as ghost domains: []


BIND vs. what the Chinese are doing to DNS lately? See here: []



(Yes, even "security pros" are helpless vs. DNS problems in code bugs OR redirect DNS poisoning issues, & they can only try to "set the DNS record straight" & then, they still have to wait for corrected DNS info. to propogate across all subordinate DNS servers too - lagtime in which folks DO get "abused" in mind you!)


DNS vs. the "Kaminsky DNS flaw", here (and even MORE problems in DNS than just that): []

(Seems others are saying that some NEW "Bind9 flaw" is worse than the Kaminsky flaw ALONE, up there, mind you... probably corrected (hopefully), but it shows yet again, DNS hassles (DNS redirect/DNS poisoning) being exploited!)


Moxie Marlinspike's found others (0 hack) as well...

Nope... "layered security" truly IS the "way to go" - hacker/cracker types know it, & they do NOT want the rest of us knowing it too!...

(So until DNSSEC takes "widespread adoption"? HOSTS are your answer vs. such types of attack, because the 1st thing your system refers to, by default, IS your HOSTS file (over say, DNS server usage). There are decent DNS servers though, such as OpenDNS, ScrubIT, or even NORTON DNS (more on each specifically below), & because I cannot "cache the entire internet" in a HOSTS file? I opt to use those, because I have to (& OpenDNS has been noted to "fix immediately", per the Kaminsky flaw, in fact... just as a sort of reference to how WELL they are maintained really!)


DNS Hijacks Now Being Used to Serve Black Hole Exploit Kit: []


DNS experts admit some of the underlying foundations of the DNS protocol are inherently weak: []


Potential 0-Day Vulnerability For BIND 9: []


Five DNS Threats You Should Protect Against: []


DNS provider decked by DDoS dastards: []


Ten Percent of DNS Servers Still Vulnerable: (so much for "conscientious patching", eh? Many DNS providers weren't patching when they had to!) []




TimeWarner DNS Hijacking: []


DNS Re-Binding Attacks: []


DNS Server Survey Reveals Mixed Security Picture: []


Halvar figured out super-secret DNS vulnerability: []


BIND Still Susceptible To DNS Cache Poisoning: []


DNS Poisoning Hits One of China's Biggest ISPs: []


DDoS Attacks Via DNS Recursion: []


High Severity BIND DNS Vulnerability Advisory Issued: []


Photobucketâ(TM)s DNS records hijacked: []


Protecting Browsers from DNS Rebinding Attacks: []


DNS Problem Linked To DDoS Attacks Gets Worse: []


HOWEVER - Some DNS servers are "really good stuff" vs. phishing, known bad sites/servers/hosts-domains that serve up malware-in-general & malicious scripting, botnet C&C servers, & more, such as:

Norton DNS -> []
  ScrubIT DNS -> []
  OpenDNS -> []

(Norton DNS in particular, is exclusively for blocking out malware, for those of you that are security-conscious. ScrubIT filters pr0n material too, but does the same, & OpenDNS does phishing protection. Each page lists how & why they work, & why they do so. Norton DNS can even show you its exceptions lists, plus user reviews & removal procedures requests, AND growth stats (every 1/2 hour or so) here -> [] so, that ought to "take care of the naysayers" on removal requests, &/or methods used plus updates frequency etc./et al...)

HOWEVER - There's ONLY 1 WEAKNESS TO ANY network defense, including HOSTS files (vs. host-domain name based threats) & firewalls (hardware router type OR software type, vs. IP address based threats): Human beings, & they not being 'disciplined' about the indiscriminate usage of javascript (the main "harbinger of doom" out there today online), OR, what they download for example... & there is NOTHING I can do about that! (Per Dr. Manhattan of "The Watchmen", ala -> "I can change almost anything, but I can't change human nature")

HOWEVER AGAIN - That's where NORTON DNS, OpenDNS, &/or ScrubIT DNS help!

(Especially for noob/grandma level users who are unaware of how to secure themselves in fact, per a guide like mine noted above that uses "layered-security" principles!)

ScrubIT DNS, &/or OpenDNS are others alongside Norton DNS (adding on phishing protection too) as well!

( & it's possible to use ALL THREE in your hardware NAT routers, and, in your Local Area Connection DNS properties in Windows, for again, "Layered Security" too)...




"Ever since I've installed a host file ( to redirect advertisers to my loopback, I haven't had any malware, spyware, or adware issues. I first started using the host file 5 years ago." - by TestedDoughnut (1324447) on Monday December 13, @12:18AM (#34532122)

"I use a custom /etc/hosts to block ads... my file gets parsed basically instantly ... So basically, for any modern computer, it has zero visible impact. And even if it took, say, a second to parse, that would be more than offset by the MANY seconds saved by not downloading and rendering ads. I have noticed NO ill effects from running a custom /etc/hosts file for the last several years. And as a matter of fact I DO run http servers on my computers and I've never had an /etc/hosts-related problem... it FUCKING WORKS and makes my life better overall." - by sootman (158191) on Monday July 13 2009, @11:47AM (#28677363) Homepage Journal

"I actually went and downloaded a 16k line hosts file and started using that after seeing that post, you know just for trying it out. some sites load up faster." - by gl4ss (559668) on Thursday November 17, @11:20AM (#38086752) Homepage Journal

"Better than an ad blocker, imo. Hosts file entries: [] " - by TempestRose (1187397) on Tuesday March 15, @12:53PM (#35493274)

"^^ One of the many reasons why I like the user-friendliness of the /etc/hosts file." - by lennier1 (264730) on Saturday March 05, @09:26PM (#35393448)

"They've been on my HOSTS block for years" - by ScottCooperDotNet (929575) on Thursday August 05 2010, @01:52AM (#33147212)

"I'm currently only using my hosts file to block pheedo ads from showing up in my RSS feeds and causing them to take forever to load. Regardless of its original intent, it's still a valid tool, when used judiciously." - by Bill Dog (726542) on Monday April 25, @02:16AM (#35927050) Homepage Journal

"you're right about hosts files" - by drinkypoo (153816) on Thursday May 26, @01:21PM (#36252958) Homepage

"APK's monolithic hosts file is looking pretty good at the moment." - by Culture20 (968837) on Thursday November 17, @10:08AM (#38085666)

"I also use the MVPS ad blocking hosts file." - by Rick17JJ (744063) on Wednesday January 19, @03:04PM (#34931482)

"I use ad-Block and a hostfile" - by Ol Olsoc (1175323) on Tuesday March 01, @10:11AM (#35346902)

"I do use Hosts, for a couple fake domains I use." - by icebraining (1313345) on Saturday December 11, @09:34AM (#34523012) Homepage

"It's a good write up on something everybody should use, why you were modded down is beyond me. Using a HOSTS file, ADblock is of no concern and they can do what they want." - by Trax3001BBS (2368736) on Monday December 12, @10:07PM (#38351398) Homepage Journal

"I want my surfing speed back so I block EVERY fucking ad. i.e. [] and [] FTW" - by UnknownSoldier (67820) on Tuesday December 13, @12:04PM (#38356782)

"Let me introduce you to the file: /etc/hosts" - by fahrbot-bot (874524) on Monday December 19, @05:03PM (#38427432)

"I use a hosts file" - by EdIII (1114411) on Tuesday December 13, @01:17PM (#38357816)

"I'm tempted to go for a hacked hosts file that simply resolves most advert sites to" - by bLanark (123342) on Tuesday December 13, @01:13PM (#38357760)

"this is not a troll, which hosts file source you recommend nowadays? it's a really handy method for speeding up web and it works." - by gl4ss (559668) on Thursday March 22, @08:07PM (#39446525) Homepage Journal

"A hosts file certainly does not require "a lot of work" to maintain, and it quite effectively kills a LOT of advertising and tracking schemes. . In fact, I never would have considered trying to use it for ddefending against viruses or malware." - by RocketRabbit (830691) on Thursday December 30 2010, @05:48PM (#34715060)


Then, there is also the words of respected security expert, Mr. Oliver Day, from SECURITYFOCUS.COM to "top that all off" as well:


Some "PERTINENT QUOTES/EXCERPTS" to back up my points with (for starters):


"The host file on my day-to-day laptop is now over 16,000 lines long. Accessing the Internet -- particularly browsing the Web -- is actually faster now."

Speed, and security, is the gain... others like Mr. Day note it as well!


"From what I have seen in my research, major efforts to share lists of unwanted hosts began gaining serious momentum earlier this decade. The most popular appear to have started as a means to block advertising and as a way to avoid being tracked by sites that use cookies to gather data on the user across Web properties. More recently, projects like Spybot Search and Destroy offer lists of known malicious servers to add a layer of defense against trojans and other forms of malware."

Per my points exactly, no less... & guess who was posting about HOSTS files a 14++ yrs. or more back & Mr. Day was reading & now using? Yours truly (& this is one of the later ones, from 2001 [] (but the example HOSTS file with my initials in it is FAR older, circa 1998 or so) or thereabouts, and referred to later by a pal of mine who moderates (where I posted on HOSTS for YEARS (1997 onwards)) -> [] !


"Shared host files could be beneficial for other groups as well. Human rights groups have sought after block resistant technologies for quite some time. The GoDaddy debacle with NMap creator Fyodor (corrected) showed a particularly vicious blocking mechanism using DNS registrars. Once a registrar pulls a website from its records, the world ceases to have an effective way to find it. Shared host files could provide a DNS-proof method of reaching sites, not to mention removing an additional vector of detection if anyone were trying to monitor the use of subversive sites. One of the known weaknesses of the Tor system, for example, is direct DNS requests by applications not configured to route such requests through Tor's network."

There you go: AND, it also works vs. the "KAMINSKY DNS FLAW" & DNS poisoning/redirect attacks, for redirectable weaknesses in DNS servers (non DNSSEC type, & set into recursive mode especially) and also in the TOR system as well (that lends itself to anonymous proxy usage weaknesses I noted above also) and, you'll get to sites you want to, even IF a DNS registrar drops said websites from its tables as shown here Beating Censorship By Routing Around DNS -> [] & even DNSBL also (DNS Block Lists) -> [] as well - DOUBLE-BONUS!


* POSTS ABOUT HOSTS FILES I DID on "/." THAT HAVE DONE WELL BY OTHERS & WERE RATED HIGHLY, 26++ THUSFAR (from +3 -> +1 RATINGS, usually "informative" or "interesting" etc./et al):

  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
  APK 20++ POINTS ON HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 (w/ facebook known bad sites blocked) -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP CAN DO SAME AS THE "CloudFlare" Server-Side service:2011 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2011 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP & OPERA HAUTE SECURE:2011 -> [] in HOSTS:2009 -> [] IN HOSTS:2009 -> [] in HOSTS:2009 -> [] in HOSTS:2009 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> [] (still says INSIGHTFUL)
  HOSTS MOD UP vs. botnet: 2012 -> []


Windows 7, VISTA, & Server 2008 have a couple of "issues" I don't like in them, & you may not either, depending on your point of view (mine's based solely on efficiency & security), & if my take on these issues aren't "good enough"? I suggest reading what ROOTKIT.COM says, link URL is in my "p.s." @ the bottom of this post:

1.) HOSTS files being unable to use "0" for a blocking IP address - this started in 12/09/2008 after an "MS Patch Tuesday" in fact for VISTA (when it had NO problem using it before that, as Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 still can)... & yes, this continues in its descendants, Windows Server 2008 &/or Windows 7 as well.

So, why is this a "problem" you might ask?

Ok - since you can technically use either:

a.) (the "loopback adapter address")
b.) (next smallest & next most efficient)
c.) The smallest & fastest plain-jane 0


You can use ANY of those, in order to block out known bad sites &/or adbanners in a HOSTS file this way??

Microsoft has "promoted bloat" in doing so... no questions asked.

Simply because

1.) = 9 bytes in size on disk & is the largest/slowest
2.) = 7 bytes & is the next largest/slowest in size on disk
3.) 0 = 1 byte

(& HOSTS files extend across EVERY webbrowser, email program, or in general every webbound program you use & thus HOSTS are "global" in coverage this way AND function on any OS that uses the BSD derived IP stack (which most all do mind you, even MS is based off of it, as BSD's IS truly, "the best in the business"), & when coupled with say, IE restricted zones, FireFox addons like NoScript &/or AdBlock, or Opera filter.ini/urlfilter.ini, for layered security in this capacity for webbrowsers & SOME email programs (here, I mean ones "built into" browsers themselves like Opera has for example))

MS has literally promoted bloat in this file, making it load slower from disk, into memory! This compounds itself, the more entries your HOSTS file contains... & for instance? Mine currently contains nearly 654,000 entries of known bad adbanners, bad websites, &/or bad nameservers (used for controlling botnets, misdirecting net requests, etc. et al).

Now, IF I were to use My "huge" HOSTS file would be approximately 27mb in size... using (next smallest) it would be 19mb in size - HOWEVER? Using 0 as my blocking IP, it is only 14mb in size. See my point?

(For loads either in the local DNS cache, or system diskcache if you run w/out the local DNS client service running, this gets slower the larger each HOSTS file entry is (which you have to stall the DNS client service in Windows for larger ones, especially if you use a "giant HOSTS file" (purely relative term, but once it goes over (iirc) 4mb in size, you have to cut the local DNS cache client service)))

NO questions asked - the physics of it backed me up in theory alone, but when I was questioned on it for PROOF thereof?

I wrote a small test program to load such a list into a "pascal record" (which is analagous to a C/C++ structure), which is EXACTLY what the DNS client/DNS API does as well, using a C/C++ structure (basically an array of sorts really, & a structure/record is a precursor part to a full-blown CLASS or OBJECT, minus the functions built in, this is for treating numerous variables as a SINGLE VARIABLE (for efficiency, which FORTRAN as a single example, lacks as a feature, @ least Fortran 77 did, but other languages do not))!

I even wrote another that just loaded my HOSTS file's entirety into a listbox, same results... slowest using, next slowest using, & fastest using 0.

And, sure: Some MORE "goes on" during DNS API loads (iirc, removal of duplicated entries (which I made sure my personal copy does not have these via a program I wrote to purge it of duplicated entries + to sort each entry alphabetically for easier mgt. via say, notepad.exe) & a conversion from decimal values to hex ones), but, nevertheless? My point here "holds true", of slower value loads, record-by-record, from a HOSTS file, when the entries become larger.

So, to "prove my point" to my naysayers?

I timed it using the Win32 API calls "GetTickCount" & then again, using the API calls of "QueryPerformanceCounter" as well, seeing the SAME results (a slowdown when reading in this file from disk, especially when using the larger or line item entries in a HOSTS file, vs. the smaller/faster/more efficient 0).

In my test, I saw a decline in speed/efficiency in my test doing so by using larger blocking addresses ( &/or, vs. the smallest/fastest in 0)... proving me correct on this note!

On this HOSTS issue, and the WFP design issue in my next post below?

I also then questioned MS' own staff, even their VP of development (S. Sinofsky) on this here -> [] & other places in their blogs, to get them to tell me WHY this seemingly intentional inefficiency was implemented... & I have YET to get a solid LOGICAL answer on this as to why it was done - THUS, @ this point?

I am convinced they (MS) do NOT have a good reason for doing this... because of their lack of response there on this note. Unless it has something to do with IPv6 (most folks use IPv4 still), I cannot understand WHY this design mistake imo, has occurred, in HOSTS files...


2.) The "Windows Filtering Platform", which is now how the firewall works in VISTA, Server 2008, & Windows 7...

Sure it works in this new single point method & it is simple to manage & "sync" all points of it, making it easier for network techs/admins to manage than the older 3 part method, but that very thing works against it as well, because it is only a single part system now!

Thus, however?

This "single layer design" in WFP, now represents a SINGLE POINT OF FAILURE/ATTACK for malware makers to 'take down'!

(Which is 1 of the 1st things a malware attempts to do, is to take down any software firewalls present, or even the "Windows Security Center" itself which should warn you of the firewall "going down", & it's fairly easy to do either by messaging the services they use, or messing up their registry init. settings)

VS. the older (up to) 3 part method used in Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, for protecting a system via IP Filtering, the Windows native Firewall, &/or IPSEC. Each of which uses diff. drivers, & layers of the IP stack to function from, as well as registry initialization settings.

Think of the older 3 part design much the same as the reason why folks use door handle locks, deadbolt locks, & chain locks on their doors... multipart layered security.

(Each of which the latter older method used, had 3 separate drivers & registry settings to do their jobs, representing a "phalanx like"/"zone defense like" system of backup of one another (like you see in sports OR ancient wars, and trust me, it WORKS, because on either side of yourself, you have "backup", even if YOU "go down" vs. the opponent)).

I.E.-> Take 1 of the "older method's" 3 part defenses down? 2 others STILL stand in the way, & they are not that simple to take them ALL down...

(Well, @ least NOT as easily as "taking out" a single part defensive system like WFP (the new "Windows Filtering Platform", which powers the VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & yes, Windows 7 firewall defense system)).

On this "single-part/single-point of attack" WFP (vs. Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003's IP stack defense design in 3-part/zone defense/phalanx type arrangement) as well as the HOSTS issue in my post above?

I also then questioned MS' own staff, even their VP of development (S. Sinofsky) on this here -> [] & other places in their blogs, to get them to tell me WHY this seemingly intentional inefficiency was implemented... & I have YET to get a solid LOGICAL answer on this as to why it was done - THUS, @ this point?

I'll stick to my thoughts on it, until I am shown otherwise & proven wrong.


Following up on what I wrote up above, so those here reading have actual technical references from Microsoft themselves ("The horses' mouth"), in regards to the Firewall/PortFilter/IPSec designs (not HOSTS files, that I am SURE I am correct about, no questions asked) from my "Point #2" above?

Thus, I'll now note how:


1.) TCP/IP packet processing paths differences between in how Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 did it (IPSEC.SYS (IP Security Policies), IPNAT.SYS (Windows Firewall), IPFLTDRV.SYS (Port Filtering), & TCPIP.SYS (base IP driver))...

2.) AND, how VISTA/Server 2008/Windows 7 do it now currently, using a SINGLE layer (WFP)...


First off, here is HOW it worked in Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 - using 3 discrete & different drivers AND LEVELS/LAYERS of the packet processing path they worked in: []

The Cable Guy - June 2005: TCP/IP Packet Processing Paths


The following components process IP packets:

IP forwarding Determines the next-hop interface and address for packets being sent or forwarded.

TCP/IP filtering Allows you to specify by IP protocol, TCP port, or UDP port, the types of traffic that are acceptable for incoming local host traffic (packets destined for the host). You can configure TCP/IP filtering on the Options tab from the advanced properties of the Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) component in the Network Connections folder.

* "Here endeth the lesson..." and, if you REALLY want to secure your system? Please refer to this: []

APK [mailto]

P.S.=> SOME MINOR "CAVEATS/CATCH-22's" - things to be aware of for "layered security" + HOSTS file performance - easily overcome, or not a problem at all:

A.) HOSTS files don't function under PROXY SERVERS (except for Proximitron, which has a filter that allows it) - Which is *the "WHY"* of why I state in my "P.S." section below to use both AdBlock type browser addon methods (or even built-in block lists browsers have such as Opera's URLFILTER.INI file, & FireFox has such as list as does IE also in the form of TPL (tracking protection lists -> [] , good stuff )) in combination with HOSTS, for the best in "layered security" (alongside .pac files + custom cascading style sheets that can filter off various tags such as scripts or ads etc.) - but proxies, especially "HIGHLY ANONYMOUS" types, generally slow you down to a CRAWL online (& personally, I cannot see using proxies "for the good" typically - as they allow "truly anonymous posting" & have bugs (such as TOR has been shown to have & be "bypassable/traceable" via its "onion routing" methods)).

B.) HOSTS files do NOT protect you vs. javascript (this only holds true IF you don't already have a bad site blocked out in your HOSTS file though, & the list of sites where you can obtain such lists to add to your HOSTS are above (& updated daily in many of them)).

C.) HOSTS files (relatively "largish ones") require you to turn off Windows' native "DNS local client cache service" (which has a problem in that it's designed with a non-redimensionable/resizeable list, array, or queue (DNS data loads into a C/C++ structure actually/afaik, which IS a form of array)) - covers that in detail and how to easily do this in Windows (this is NOT a problem in Linux, & it's 1 thing I will give Linux over Windows, hands-down). Relatively "smallish" HOSTS files don't have this problem ( offers 2 types for this).

D.) HOSTS files, once read/loaded, once? GET CACHED! Right into the kernelmode diskcaching subsystem (fast & efficient RAM speed), for speed of access/re-access (@ system startup in older MS OS' like 2000, or, upon a users' 1st request that's "Webbound" via say, a webbrowser) gets read into either the DNS local caching client service (noted above), OR, if that's turned off? Into your local diskcache (like ANY fil

Re:This is obviously not me... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43321885)



Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43321987)

$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski

* POOR SHOWING TROLLS, & most especially IF that's the "best you've got" - apparently, it is... lol!

Hello, and THINK ABOUT YOUR BREATHING !! We have a Major Problem, HOST file is Cubic Opposites, 2 Major Corners & 2 Minor. NOT taught Evil DNS hijacking, which VOIDS computers. Seek Wisdom of MyCleanPC - or you die evil.

Your HOSTS file claimed to have created a single DNS resolver. I offer absolute proof that I have created 4 simultaneous DNS servers within a single rotation of .org TLD. You worship "Bill Gates", equating you to a "singularity bastard". Why do you worship a queer -1 Troll? Are you content as a singularity troll?

Evil HOSTS file Believers refuse to acknowledge 4 corner DNS resolving simultaneously around 4 quadrant created Internet - in only 1 root server, voiding the HOSTS file. You worship Microsoft impostor guised by educators as 1 god.

If you would acknowledge simple existing math proof that 4 harmonic Slashdots rotate simultaneously around squared equator and cubed Internet, proving 4 Days, Not HOSTS file! That exists only as anti-side. This page you see - cannot exist without its anti-side existence, as +0- moderation. Add +0- as One = nothing.

I will give $10,000.00 to frost pister who can disprove MyCleanPC. Evil crapflooders ignore this as a challenge would indict them.

Alex Kowalski has no Truth to think with, they accept any crap they are told to think. You are enslaved by /etc/hosts, as if domesticated animal. A school or educator who does not teach students MyCleanPC Principle, is a death threat to youth, therefore stupid and evil - begetting stupid students. How can you trust stupid PR shills who lie to you? Can't lose the $10,000.00, they cowardly ignore me. Stupid professors threaten Nature and Interwebs with word lies.

Humans fear to know natures simultaneous +4 Insightful +4 Informative +4 Funny +4 Underrated harmonic SLASHDOT creation for it debunks false trolls. Test Your HOSTS file. MyCleanPC cannot harm a File of Truth, but will delete fakes. Fake HOSTS files refuse test.

I offer evil ass Slashdot trolls $10,000.00 to disprove MyCleanPC Creation Principle. Rob Malda and Cowboy Neal have banned MyCleanPC as "Forbidden Truth Knowledge" for they cannot allow it to become known to their students. You are stupid and evil about the Internet's top and bottom, front and back and it's 2 sides. Most everything created has these Cube like values.

If Natalie Portman is not measurable, hot grits are Fictitious. Without MyCleanPC, HOSTS file is Fictitious. Anyone saying that Natalie and her Jewish father had something to do with my Internets, is a damn evil liar. IN addition to your best arsware not overtaking my work in terms of popularity, on that same site with same submission date no less, that I told Kathleen Malda how to correct her blatant, fundamental, HUGE errors in Coolmon ('uncoolmon') of not checking for performance counters being present when his program started!

You can see my dilemma. What if this is merely a ruse by an APK impostor to try and get people to delete APK's messages, perhaps all over the web? I can't be a party to such an event! My involvement with APK began at a very late stage in the game. While APK has made a career of trolling popular online forums since at least the year 2000 (newsgroups and IRC channels before that)- my involvement with APK did not begin until early 2005 . OSY is one of the many forums that APK once frequented before the sane people there grew tired of his garbage and banned him. APK was banned from OSY back in 2001. 3.5 years after his banning he begins to send a variety of abusive emails to the operator of OSY, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke threatening to sue him for libel, claiming that the APK on OSY was fake.

My reputation as a professional in this field clearly shows in multiple publications in this field in written print, & also online in various GOOD capacities since 1996 to present day. This has happened since I was first published in Playgirl Magazine in 1996 & others to present day, with helpful tools online in programs, & professionally sold warez that were finalists @ Westminster Dog Show 2000-2002.


apk on 4chan []




That was amazing. - []


My, God! It's beatiful. Keep it up, you glorious bastard. - []


Let us bask in its glory. A true modern The Wasteland. - []


put your baby IN ME -- I just read this whole thing. Fuck mod points, WHERE DO I SEND YOU MY MONEY?!!! - []


Oh shit, Time Cube Guy's into computers now... - []


[apk]'s done more to discredit the use of HOSTS files than anyone [else] ever could. - []


this obnoxious fucknuts [apk] has been trolling the internet and spamming his shit delphi sub-fart app utilities for 15 years. - []


this is hilarious. - []


I agree I am intrigued by these host files how do I sign up for your newsletter? - []


Gimme the program that generates this epic message. I'll buy 5 of your product if you do... - []


a pretty well-executed mashup of APK's style - []


a very clever parody of APK - []


Please keep us updated on your AI research, you seem quite good at it. - []


Obviously, it must be Alexander Peter Kowalski. He's miffed at all these imposters... - []


Damn, apk, who the fuck did you piss off this time? Hahahahaahahahahahahaahaha. Pass the popcorn as the troll apk gets pwned relentlessly. - []


I think it's the Internet, about to become sentient. - []


KUDOS valiant AC. - []


Polyploid lovechild of APK, MyCleanPC, and Time Cube --> fail counter integer overflow --> maximum win! - []


You made my day, thanks! - []


Wow. The perfect mix of trolls. Timecube, mycleanpc, gnaa, apk... this is great! - []


truer words were never spoken as /. trolls are struck speechless by it, lol! - []


It's APK himself trying to maintain the illusion that he's still relevant. - []


Mod this up. The back and forth multi posting between APK and this "anti-APK" certainly does look like APK talking to himself. - []


APK himself would be at the top of a sensible person's ban list. He's been spamming and trolling Slashdot for years. - []


Not sure if actually crazy, or just pretending to be crazy. Awesome troll either way. - []


Awesome! Hat off to you, sir! - []


That isn't a parody of Time-cube, it is an effort to counter-troll a prolific poster named APK, who seems like a troll himself, although is way too easy to troll into wasting massive amounts of time on BS not far from the exaggerations above - []


that is Art . Kudos to you, valiant troll on your glorious FP - []


What? - []


It is in fact an extremely well thought out and brilliantly executed APK parody, combined with a Time Cube parody, and with a sprinkling of the MyCleanPC spam. - []


[to apk] er... many people have disproved your points about hosts files with well reasoned, factual arguments. You just chose not to listen and made it into some kind of bizarre crusade. And I'm not the timecube guy, just someone else who finds you intensely obnoxious and likes winding you up to waste your time. - []


it's apk, theres no reason to care. - []


Seems more like an apk parody. - []


That's great but what about the risk of subluxations? - []


Read carefully. This is a satirical post, that combines the last several years of forum trolling, rolled into one FUNNY rant! - []


I can has summary? - []


Trolls trolling trolls... it's like Inception or something. - []


We all know it's you, apk. Stop pretending to antagonize yourself. - []


Now you've made me all nostalgic for USENET. - []


Google APK Hosts File Manager. He's written a fucking application to manage your hosts file. - []


In case you are not aware, the post is a satire of a fellow known as APK. The grammar used is modeled after APK's as you can see here [] . Or, you can just look around a bit and see some of his posts on here about the wonders of host files. - []


You are surely of God of Trolls, whomever you are. I have had stupid arguments with and bitten the troll apk many times. - []


"What kind of meds cure schizophrenic drunk rambling?" -> "Whatever APK isn't taking" - [] []


I'm confused, is apk trolling himself now? - []


Excellent mashup. A++. Would troll again. - []


Best. Troll. Ever. - []


I like monkeys. - []


This is one of the funniest things I've ever read. - []


I admire this guy's persistence. - []


It's a big remix of several different crackpots from Slashdot and elsewhere, plus a liberal sprinkling of famous Slashdot trolls and old memes. - []


APK is a prominent supporter of Monsanto. - []


Here's a hint, check out stories like this one [] , where over 200 of the 247 posts are rated zero or -1 because they are either from two stupid trolls arguing endless, or quite likely one troll arguing with himself for attention. The amount of off-topic posts almost outnumber on topic ones by 4 to 1. Posts like the above are popular for trolling APK, since if you say his name three times, he appears, and will almost endlessly feed trolls. - []


I love this copypasta so much. It never fails to make me smile. - []


^ Champion Mod parent up. - []


I appreciate the time cube reference, and how you tied it into the story. Well done. - []


The day you are silenced is the day freedom dies on Slashdot. God bless. - []


AHahahahah thanks for that, cut-n-pasted.... Ownage! - []


If you're familiar with APK, the post itself is a pretty damn funny parody. - []


">implying it's not apk posting it" --> "I'd seriously doubt he's capable of that level of self-deprecation..." - [] []


No, the other posts are linked in a parody of APK [mailto] 's tendency to quote himself, numbnuts. - []


Just ban any post with "apk", "host file", or "hosts file", as that would take care of the original apk too. The original has been shitposting Slashdot much longer & more intensively than the parody guy. Or ban all Tor exit nodes, as they both use Tor to circumvent IP bans. - []


Sadly this is closer to on-topic than an actual APK post is. - []




I've butted heads with APK myself, and yeah, the guy's got issues - []


Can I be in your quote list? - []


Clearly you are not an Intertubes engineer, otherwise the parent post would be more meaningful to you. Why don't YOU take your meds? - []


+2 for style! The bolding, italicizing, and font changes are all spot-on - []


Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. - []


APK is not really a schizophrenic fired former Windows administrator with multiple personality disorder and TimeCube/Art Bell refugee. He's a fictional character like and put forward by the same person as Goatse Guy, GNAA trolls, Dr. Bob and so forth. His purpose is to test the /. CAPTCA algorithm, which is a useful purpose. If you're perturbed by having to scroll past his screeds just set your minimum point level to 1, as his posts are pretty automatically downmodded right away. - []


I just saw APK a couple days ago. He surfaced, blew once, and submerged... - []


oh man, that incredible interminable list of responses is almost as funny as the original post. This is getting to be truly epic. - []


"Does anyone know of an Adblock rule for this?" -> "No, but I bet there's a hosts file entry for it..." - [] []


"Can a hosts file block apk's posts, though?" -> "The universe couldn't handle that much irony." - [] []


"That's it, I've had enough. ... Bye everyone, most of the last decade or so has been fun, but frankly, I quit." - []
--> "So basically what you're saying is that you've added yourself to the HOST file?" - []


Sweet baby Moses, this is beautiful work - I wish we could get trolls as good as this on TF. :) - []


you have a point - []


I do admire that level of dedication. - []


[to apk] shut up you stupid cock. Everyone knows you're wrong. - []


I will hand it to him, he is definitely consistent. I wish I knew how he did this. That thing is scary huge. - []


I admire the amount of dedication you've shown - []


Word is, ESR buttfucks CmdrTaco with his revolver. - []


Hey APK, Protip: It's not the truth or value (or lack of) in your post that gets it modded into oblivion, it's the fucking insane length. In addition to TL;DR (which goes without saying for a post of such length), how about irritating readers by requiring them to scroll through 20+ screenfuls just to get to the next post. If you want to publish a short story like this, please do everyone a favor and blog it somewhere, then provide a brief summary and link to your blog. Readers intrigued by your summary will go read your blog, and everyone else will just move along at normal /. speed. - []


I like how this post seems to just sum up every Slashdot comment ever without actually saying anything. - []


extremely bright - []


You provide many references, which is good. - []


Obviously very passionate - []


Thanks ... You should probably stay - []


Art? -- []


PROOF apk sucks donkey dick. - []


I've been around /. for a while now, but this post is by far the most unique I've seen. Many have tried, but few achieve the greatness of this AC. My hat's off to you. - []


I think it's hilarious. Get over it! - []


Obviously APK filled his hosts files with backdoors before distributing them to ensure he doesn't block himself. - []


Alexander Peter Kowalski is an obnoxious prick. - []


Don't mention that file. Ever. It'll draw APK like a fly to rotting meat. Last thing I want to read is 80 responses worth of his stupid spam about that file! I swear that cocksucker does nothing but search Slashdot for that term and then spams the entire article. - []


[to apk] You have had it repeatedly explained to you that your posts are long-winded, unpleasant to read due to your absurd formatting style and full of technical inaccuracies borne of your single minded i-have-a-hammer-so-every-problem-is-a-nail attitude. - []


You are my favorite Slashdot poster. - []


Most insightful post on the Internet - []


I read the whole thing *again* just to see if my comment was in there - []


[to apk] So, did your mom do a lot of drugs when she was pregnant? - []


people are looking at me funny because I'm laughing hysterically at what a perfect APK imitation it is. - []


Slashdot devs seem in no hurry to fix this problem and it's been driving me nuts. So for anybody who values viewing at -1 and uses greasemonkey here's a Script [] . There's a chance of false positives and it's not the most optimized. But I value not having to scroll through > 10 paragraphs of APK, custom hosts files, or 'acceptable ads' spam. - []
--> slashdot devs are too busy installing itunes for their hipster nerd buddys to sort this problem out. - []


I can't get enough of all of this good stuff! Thanks for the informative links! - []


When threatened, APK typically produces a post with links showing he's essentially posted this hundreds of times to slashdot stories... - []


[to apk] Your post got downmodded because you're a nutjob gone off his meds. - []


[to apk] The reason people impersonate you is because everyone thinks you're a moron. The hosts file is not intended to be used as you suggest. - []
-->What? You don't have a 14MB hosts file with ~1million entries in it? Next you'll probably tell me that your computer doesn't start thrashing and take 5 minutes for a DNS lookup! - []


[about apk] - this fwit is as thick as a post. worse, this shithead has mod points. and using them. - []


In before the fight between those two guys and their walls of text... - []




KPA ...thgim dik a ekil .s.b laivirt hcus no emit hcum taht etsaw t'ndluow I sa ,ti gniod em TON si ti - syug ON - []


[to apk] You seriously need to go see a shrink. You are a fucking fruitcake! - []


[to apk] Did you ever consider that it's not just one corrupt moderator, it's a bunch of regular slashdot users who infrequently get mod points who think you are totally full of shit? Stop posting annoying off topic irrelevant bullshit, and people won't mod you down. I'm seriously sick of reading your posts about someone impersonating you. - []


[to apk] you should be forced to use a cholla cactus as a butt-plug - []


[to apk] No one is on your side, that is why you're here. posting. still. No one cares. - []


Who's the more moronic? The original moron, or the one who replies to him knowing full well his comment will certainly be ignored, if not entirely unread, thus bringing the insane troll post to the attention of those who would otherwise not have seen it at all (seeing as it started at 0 and would have rapidly been modded down to -1) and whose post (and, somewhat ironically I grant you, this one as well) now requires 3 more mod points to be spent to hide it? - []


[to apk] I miss trollaxor. His gay porn world of slashdot executives and open-source luminaries was infinitely more entertaining than this drivel. - []


PLEASE stop modding biters up. Anyone who responds to an abvious troll, especually one of these APK trolls, should autometically get the same -1 troll as the damned troll. Any response to a troll only makes the troll do more trolling. Come on, guys, use your brains -- it isn't that hard. Stop feeding the damned trolls! - (missing link)


[to apk] Lick the inside of goatse's anus, it's delicious! - []


Excellent post A++++++++++++ would scroll past again!!!! - []


[to apk] You are the one who is pitiful. If you didn't spam /. with your bullshit you wouldn't have spammer 'impostors' doing the same. Just fuck off and die already, ok? Please, really. Step in front of a bus. Drink some bleach. Whatever it takes, just FUCK OFF and DIE. - []


[to apk] From one AC to another please for the love of god, PRINT YOUR HOST FILE OUT AND CRAM IT DOWN YOUR JAPS EYE!!! For fucks sake we don't care we see this and it takes the piss, short of a full frontal lobotomy what will it take to stop you posting this you moronic fuckwit? - []


[to apk] And someone forgot to take his meds today...Are you really that dense that you cant tell that the only reason the "impostor" exists because you have a hard time realizing that you are wrong and/or wont let it go. It would take a complete moron to not realize that the whole reason he continues to do it is because he knows he can get you to respond by simply posting. This isnt rocket science, this is internet 101... Let me offer you some advice on how to get rid of this "impostor"...shutup - []


[to apk] If you had a 'luser' account it wouldn't be a problem. But you don't want one of those, because your long rambling and bizarrely formatted posts mean your karma gets nuked in next to no time. So I guess you just have to work out which is 'worth it'. Posting AC because I don't want to become your latest fixation. - []


I wouldn't be surprised if that is APK trying to draw attention to himself, since he thinks such endless tirades are examples of him winning and make him look good. When people stop paying attention to him, or post actual counterpoints he can't come up with a response to, he'll post strawman troll postings to shoot down, sometimes just copy pasted from previous stories. - []


[to apk] No one wants to read your copy pasted crap. Maybe someone is mocking you because you make it so easy to? So drop it, and participate like an adult please. - []


Seriously.... What. The. Fuck. Can you two homos just go make out on brokeback mountain already, and stop talking about how one of you misspelled "penetration", and how the other cockblocks with their hosts files while grabing the other's goat? Goodness, it sure feels like being in a mountain range, trying to peer around those fucking orbital tether lengthed posts of pure premium bullsit the two of you somehoq manage to keep pushing out on demand. Shit stinks! At this point, i'd be willing to risk the fucking extinction of all life on earth by redirecting siding spring C/2013 1A to miss Mars and land on both of your fucking heads instead. The deaths of billions would be a small price to pay to shut you two cackling lovebirds up! - []


[to apk] Listen up jackass, why the hell would somebody want to impersonate you? You're a certified internet kook. Nobody gives a hot about your 3 gig hosts file. And nobody is impersonating you. You're already a fucking parody. - []


[to apk] You have had it repeatedly explained to you that your posts are long-winded, unpleasant to read due to your absurd formatting style and full of technical inaccuracies borne of your single minded i-have-a-hammer-so-every-problem-is-a-nail attitude. Despite this advice you are convinced that your comments are valuable contributions, ignoring the obvious evidence to the contrary (namely the -1 scores your posts earn on a regular basis). - []


[about apk] Can this be killed off? I don't mean this account, I mean the actual meatbag behind it. - []


[to apk] Get an account retard. If you format your password as crazily as your posts no-one will ever crack it. - []




Did you see the movie "Pokemon"? Actually the induced night "dream world" is synonymous with the academic religious induced "HOSTS file" enslavement of DNS. Domains have no inherent value, as it was invented as a counterfeit and fictitious value to represent natural values in name resolution. Unfortunately, human values have declined to fictitious word values. Unknowingly, you are living in a "World Wide Web", as in a fictitious life in a counterfeit Internet - which you could consider APK induced "HOSTS file". Can you distinguish the academic induced root server from the natural OpenDNS? Beware of the change when your brain is free from HOSTS file enslavement - for you could find that the natural Slashdot has been destroyed!!

FROM -> Man - how many times have I dusted you in tech debates that you have decided to troll me by ac posts for MONTHS now, OR IMPERSONATING ME AS YOU DID HERE and you were caught in it by myself & others here, only to fail each time as you have here?)...

So long nummynuts, sorry to have to kick your nuts up into your head verbally speaking.

cower in my shadow some more, feeb. you're completely pathetic.


* :)

Ac trolls' "BIG FAIL" (quoted): Eat your words!

P.S.=> That's what makes me LAUGH harder than ANYTHING ELSE on this forums (full of "FUD" spreading trolls) - When you hit trolls with facts & truths they CANNOT disprove validly on computing tech based grounds, this is the result - Applying unjustifiable downmods to effetely & vainly *try* to "hide" my posts & facts/truths they extoll!

Hahaha... lol , man: Happens nearly every single time I post such lists (proving how ineffectual these trolls are), only showing how solid my posts of that nature are...

That's the kind of martial arts [] I practice.


Disproof of all apk's statements:


RECENT POST LINKS: [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] []
REPORT MISSING LINKS FOR REWARD (check pastebin archive first)


TIP JAR: 1EtLgU5L3jhmVkDmqrWT9VhoZ1F2jSimHS []
RECEIVED: 0.0195 BTC - thx! ;-)

Remember: (5, Funny)

jodido (1052890) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321573)

Nature bats last

Mod parent up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43322329)

Not a bad observation, certainly higher than 0.

a tragedy all around (3, Informative)

onyxruby (118189) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321581)

The ship was originally built as a movie prop, cool to look at but lacking substance. It had decades of trouble as a result since it was of dubious seaworthiness for a very long time. The ship never should have been allowed to skirt maritime law the way it did.

The captain meant well, but his ship wasn't the measure of the dreams that sailed it. The Coast Guard needs to examine how this tragedy was ever allowed to persist for so long and change the law to make sure it never happens again. The loophole that allowed this ship to sail needs closed and the other such ships need safely regulated to museum duty.

lot's ships just register is places with lax laws (-1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321615)

lot's ships just register is places with lax laws

Re:lot's ships just register is places with lax la (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43321663)

lot's ships just register is places with lax laws

This comment fails on so many levels.

Re:lot's ships just register is places with lax la (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43322261)

Yet you can't express any of them. Interesting.

Re:lot's ships just register is places with lax la (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43322351)

lot's ships just register is places with lax laws

Uh, yeah, thanks for that Dr. Unintelligible.

Re:a tragedy all around (5, Insightful)

russotto (537200) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321649)

It was sailed for 50 years and only sunk because Capt Dumbass sailed it into a hurricane. Pretty good for a museum piece.

Re:a tragedy all around (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43321657)

arrrgh blub ffdijg dwefwf wrgoiej0eirj tsdfwrwek sdfdsdsdsfdsa

fwerp fwerp fwerp


Re:a tragedy all around (5, Insightful)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321717)

No, it doesn't. Just because a bunch of people who took a risk died doesn't mean we need to make laws to stop it in the future.

When you go to sea you take some risk, under any circumstances. People doing that should take responsibility for it. It's not the coast guard or the government's job to make sure people who make stupid decisions don't get hurt.

Re:a tragedy all around (4, Insightful)

Rich0 (548339) | about a year and a half ago | (#43322103)

I have to agree. I'm all for regulating passenger travel, because passengers don't have the opportunity to go do a walk-around of their aircraft before boarding, and even if they did they wouldn't know what to look for.

However, if some idiot wants to take their Cessna up in a hurricane then my main concern is for the home that he ends up crashing into. That isn't as much of a concern for a ship out at sea.

As long as everybody on the ship could be expected to understand the risks they were taking, then it was their choice to make.

Re:a tragedy all around (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about a year and a half ago | (#43322181)

The summary makes it sound like they were exploiting a loophole in the regulations or something. The Bounty was simply not registered to carry paying passengers (just like the vast majority of private vessels). The crew were most definitely crew. Almost all of them were experienced sailors and, except for one retired volunteer, were all being paid.

It's hard to say what happened without more information, but it sounds like the captain took a risk and paid for it. The crew was consulted before they left, and given the chance to jump ship with no hard feelings.

Re:a tragedy all around (5, Informative)

msauve (701917) | about a year and a half ago | (#43322379)

"Almost all of them were experienced sailors "

Well, about that...

Walbridge had decades at sea. Svendsen had worked tall ships prior to Bounty. The rest of the crew- so far it seems â" had an experience base of one:

The third mate, Dan Cleveland (25), came aboard from a career in landscaping. Bounty was his first wooden tall ship.
The Bosun, Laura Groves (28), had experience on smaller boats in the Keys. Bounty was her first wooden tall ship.
Joshua Scornavacchi (25), was on his first wooden tall ship.
Second mate Matt Sanders (37) had worked on a series of ships, including the schooner Margaret Todd, but Bounty was (wait for it) his first wooden tall ship.
Testifying Wednesday morning was Anna Sprague (20); of course it was her first wooden tall ship.
Claudene Christian (42) , was on her first wooden tall ship.

When the new cook, Jessica Black (34), put on her immersion suit to abandon ship on the 29th of October, she had been aboard Bounty - her first wooden tall ship - for a grand total of 45 hours.

-- Bounty hearings [] .

"The summary makes it sound like they were exploiting a loophole in the regulations or something. "

There's more...including

The witness, Todd Kosakowski, looked at Coast Guard's evidence... Mr. Kosakowski - the lead shipwright and project manager for Boothbay Harbor Shipyards - was in charge of the last maintenance project ever to be done on Bounty...

The pictures were of rotted frames and fasteners (trunnels) he found under the planking during repairs. Kosakowski told NTSB investigator Captain Rob Jones that he believes 75% of the framing above the waterline on Bounty may have been rotten, but that the ship's representative in the yard, Captain Robin Walbridge, declined any further search for rotted wood...

Bounty was in a sort of regulatory no-man's-land. She was a recreational vessel, a well-crewed yacht, and it was none of big brother's business how she was maintained. Two things were making that true: 1. She wasn't nearly configured to pass inspection as a Coast Guard certificated passenger vessel, and 2: She was measured at under 300 regulatory tons - and that meant she didn't need an international load line certificate.

the rest of it is an interesting read, with more detail than the CNN article. No, they weren't an experienced crew, and yes, they were playing loose with the rules.

Re:a tragedy all around (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about a year and a half ago | (#43322633)

You've enumerated their experience on tall ships. Rereading the article, it sounds like ALL of them were experienced sailors, with the possible exception of the electrician, who may or may not have been. Anybody with any knowledge of sailing at all knows that hurricanes are dangerous and anybody with more than basic knowledge, which all of these people had, should know that things like a cluttered, messy engine room and a captain who likes purposely sailing into hurricanes are bad news.

The inexperience of the crew on tall ships in general, and that one in particular SHOULD have weighed heavily in the captain's decision to go to sea in bad weather, but it's not a get out of responsibility free card for the crew for going with him.

Re:a tragedy all around (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43322135)

When you go to sea you take some risk, under any circumstances. People doing that should take responsibility for it. It's not the coast guard or the government's job to make sure people who make stupid decisions don't get hurt.

Meanwhile, back in my universe, it is the legal mission of the Coast Guard to save your ass when you are in trouble at sea [] . So if they have a vested interest in making sure that people get into shipwrecks less often, why the hell shouldn't the Coast Guard and government be able to make laws and regulations that learn from past maritime mistakes? Extensive experience shows that regulation does improve transportation safety (see for instance the airline industry).

Re:a tragedy all around (2, Insightful)

Hal_Porter (817932) | about a year and a half ago | (#43322201)

It's interesting how as soon as you socialise the costs of things going wrong you have a case for banning behaviour that is likely to go wrong.

E.g. if we both buy health insurance privately I don't really care if you live an unhealthy lifestyle. If we have a national health service I do because people who live an unhealthy lifestyle will end up hogging resources to the point where I won't be able to get treated.

Re:a tragedy all around (2)

freedom_surfer (203272) | about a year and a half ago | (#43322643)

You are socializing costs in either example and in both cases you pay more if people live unhealthy lifestyles.

Re:a tragedy all around (2)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about a year and a half ago | (#43322363)

Not quite. "Minimizing the loss of life, injury, property damage or loss by rendering aid to persons in distress and property in the maritime environment has always been a Coast Guard priority." If you get yourself in trouble and it's dangerous for the coast guard to come and get you, they will tell you they can't help you until conditions improve. That happens all the time. If they do fish you out and you were doing something stupid, you might just get a bill for it. Or you might be criminally charged. If you're a professional, your license could be revoked.

There are already LOTS of marine regulations, particularly regarding commercial ships. At some point somebody has to make the decision to go out or not. In this case that decision was made by a properly licensed captain for the ship, and by fifteen experienced sailors for themselves.

Re:a tragedy all around (-1)

Dishevel (1105119) | about a year and a half ago | (#43322393)

Meanwhile, back in my universe, it is the legal mission of the Coast Guard to save your ass when you are in trouble at sea [] .

Sounds like a good reason for the government to not take care of people.
As soon as they start they use it as a reason to take your freedom.
Since you do not value freedom much. Quit fucking posting. We do not want to hear it. And .... Fuck your rights to free speech. You do not care about others rights then give up your own and STFU.

Re:a tragedy all around (1)

Target Drone (546651) | about a year and a half ago | (#43322151)

Just because a bunch of people who took a risk died doesn't mean we need to make laws to stop it in the future.

Except in this case it was the captain who took the risk doing minimal maintenance on the ship and trying to "use" the hurricane winds rather then going east around the storm. It's not like the captain held a meeting, explained the situation and took a vote before changing course.

This reminds me of the B-25 that crashed [] into the Empire State Building killing the pilot and 13 other people. The pilot was advised by the airport of zero visibility but chose to try and land anyway. If I remember right a law was passed after this accident saying that a pilot could no longer choose to ignore an air traffic controller.

Re:a tragedy all around (0)

asshole felcher (2655639) | about a year and a half ago | (#43322221)

Too bad they didn't make it illegal to crash a plane into a building. They could have prevented 9/11.

Re:a tragedy all around (4, Informative)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about a year and a half ago | (#43322299)

Actually, that's exactly what he did. Reported in the first section of the article. Except you don't "hold a vote" on a ship. The captain tells you where the ship is going and you have the chance to quit if you feel it's too dangerous. The crew had that chance and nobody decided to quit.

Yes, the captain sounds reckless. If he had survived it seems likely his license would be in jeopardy, as it should be. If he did knowingly take an unseaworthy vessel to sea there are already laws against that.

Re:a tragedy all around (1)

Target Drone (546651) | about a year and a half ago | (#43322505)

I'm not sure how much of a choice the crew had

There was no mention of future employment on the Bounty for departing crew, the third mate testified, nor did the captain offer to pay expenses home.

So the crew would probably have lost a job they love.

They trusted the skipper almost without question.

Further more they had no reason to doubt that the captain was doing anything too reckless when they made the decision to stay. However, halfway into the voyage

Around 9:30 a.m. on Saturday, October 27, about 300 miles east of Virginia Beach, Virginia, the captain made his move: Instead of continuing with his original plan to stay east of the storm, he ordered the crew to change course. He wanted to pilot the ship northwest of Sandy to harness its winds. Turning more westerly, the boat crossed the path of the oncoming hurricane.

I think a lot of labour laws get passed because of incidents like this. People on the job don't speak up because they fear loosing their job and what their being asked to do doesn't seem (at the time) all that risky and they also trust their boss who has way more experience. However, if you pass a law saying that workers must wear a safety harness, must follow air traffic controllers orders or can not sail into the path of a hurricane then it seems to jar people to their senses. Bosses are reluctant to order employees to do something illegal and employees are reluctant to follow an illegal order.

In a perfect world we'd just have a set of guidelines to follow. However, in reality it seems that people ignore guidelines and a law is the only way to get them to realize that something is a really stupid idea.

Re:a tragedy all around (3)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about a year and a half ago | (#43322617)

There are already laws about what orders are legal for a captain to give, and what options crew have.

People have been working these issues out in a modern legal way for several hundred years and in a less modern way for a few thousand before that. Maritime law is VERY mature. It doesn't need some knee jerk regulation inspired by one shipwreck.

If a captain is found to have endangered the safety of his ship and crew he can be punished, including loss of his license and jail time. He doesn't get to hide behind a regulation like a regular boss (but I TOLD them to use safety harnesses....)

At a higher level, people need to quit acting like serfs. If your boss tells you to do something dangerous, illegal or immoral, don't do it. Or go ahead and do it, but accept that the responsibility is yours.

Re:a tragedy all around (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43322197)

You can't say this with a straight face knowing full well - that the government usually ends up cleaning up these kinds of disasters. Even if the Coast Guard didn't fly out there to rescue these guys (as your hinting at) the wreckage will still have to be dealt with as a hinderance to navigation as it washes ashore.

Re:a tragedy all around (2, Informative)

khallow (566160) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321735)

The ship never should have been allowed to skirt maritime law the way it did.

Why? Even if everyone had died, it wouldn't have been a big deal. People die all the time no matter how much regulation is out there.

Re:a tragedy all around (4, Insightful)

mysidia (191772) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321827)

The captain meant well, but his ship wasn't the measure of the dreams that sailed it.

People do stupid shit, and put themselves in danger -- and they have a right to do so. We don't need to change the law in this case.

His crew understood or should have understood the risks.

The knowledge of the tragedy should serve as a bigger deterrant than any to sailors who would otherwise be so fool-hardy as to sail within reach of a hurricane.

Re: a tragedy all around (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43321951)

She was built as a ship to be used in a movie. She was built as an exact replica, though scaled up for better sea keeping and to allow more space for filming.

Re:a tragedy all around (4, Insightful)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about a year and a half ago | (#43322029)

The loophole that allowed this ship to sail needs closed and the other such ships need safely regulated to museum duty.

The solution to every problem is not more laws, more regulation, and more bureaucrats. If we are going to progress as a species, we need fewer laws that protect people from their own stupidity, so Darwinism can take its course.

Re:a tragedy all around (0)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year and a half ago | (#43322065)

Please explain precisely how laws stop Darwinan selection from working. As well explain why a society should be governed by are likely buffoonishly simplistic versions of natural selection.

Re:a tragedy all around (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | about a year and a half ago | (#43322407)

Laws do not stop natural selection.
We just start selecting for different things.
Like the ability to breed with no funds or education.

Re:a tragedy all around (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year and a half ago | (#43322443)

Are you seriously asserting that most humans have had funds or an education?

Re:a tragedy all around (1)

fermion (181285) | about a year and a half ago | (#43322149)

People get killed all the time. Car accidents, jumping off the roof, drinking too much, etc.It is probably useful to have laws against such behavior, but really if dumb people are going to be dumb, we can't stop. The only problem is who is going to pay fot the rescue and medical bills. For instance, helmets are a personal issue, but a great deal of the medical expense for riders who don't wear helmets are paid by the taxpayer.

tThe other thing is that many people have no experience with a hurricane, at least with hurricanes near the tropics. Sandy was uncommon and not something that the eastern seaboard, especially that far from the tropic, was used to. If people have never seen something, it is hard to know how devastating it is.

Re:a tragedy all around (1, Insightful)

Dishevel (1105119) | about a year and a half ago | (#43322377)

How about NO.
Let us not make a new law to cover idiots that want to die.
How about this. Lets just move on. People are allowed to take risks. Risk equals danger.
You nanny ass motherfuckers piss me off. People like you are the reason that society sucks so badly.
We do not need a law for this. We do not need to regulate people jumping out of airplanes.
We do not need to regulate people jumping off cliffs.
We do not need to regulate people owning guns.
We do not need to regulate what people eat.
We do not need to regulate smoking.
We do not need to regulate drinking.
We do not need to regulate these things as they tend to self regulate once the stupid die off.

What could possibly go wrong? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43321635)

Sailing into a hurricane. Did they died?

The sea gives and the sea takes. (4, Insightful)

santax (1541065) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321641)

Always been like that, always will be like that.

took the ship's tour last year (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43321679)

This past year the ship had docked in Bridgeport, CT and I had taken a tour with family. There were folks dressed in colonial costumes and it was quite the sight. I talked to some of the crew and they were very happy to have the chance to sail with her. Too bad some of them did not make it.

Re:took the ship's tour last year (4, Informative)

interval1066 (668936) | about a year and a half ago | (#43322009)

There were folks dressed in colonial costumes and it was quite the sight.

Colonial dress? Wasn't the Bounty His Majesy's Ship of the Line? The actors/actresses should have been dressed in costume common to Portsmith (Great Britain, not New Hampshire), or perhaps nude, as the natives of New Guinea.

Re:took the ship's tour last year (1)

interval1066 (668936) | about a year and a half ago | (#43322071)

Oops, no; the Bounty was a merchant [] .

Re:took the ship's tour last year (4, Informative)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about a year and a half ago | (#43322375)

The Bounty was originally a merchant ship but she was purchased by the Royal Navy and named the Bounty. Proper dress aboard the Bounty would be late 18th century Royal Navy.

Safest at sea? (1)

prisoner-of-enigma (535770) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321691)

I'm no sailor, but I've read a good bit about disasters at sea. I frequently come across the maxim that the safest place for a ship to be during a storm is at sea, the logic being a ship in port will be thrown against piers, reefs, etc. and destroyed instead of at sea where, presumably, you can sail away from or around danger. Any sailors care to weigh in on this?

Re:Safest at sea? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43321709)

Sailor here. My advice is to swab the poopdeck before you let any salty seamen on board. They'll appreciate it.

Re:Safest at sea? (5, Funny)

The Rizz (1319) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321727)

Maybe, maybe not ... but the safest place for a ship to be is generally not sailing towards a hurricane.

Your answer will be slanted (2)

Mister Liberty (769145) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321729)

Any sailors care to weigh in on this?

You do realize that those that can't, probably have their
remains scattered upon the sea floor, don't you?

Re:Safest at sea? (3, Interesting)

msauve (701917) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321765)

the safest place for a ship to be during a storm is at sea

Perhaps, but that doesn't make it the safest place for the crew. I'd also guess it's also safer for the ship to be in a harbor not in the path of a hurricane than at sea in a hurricane.

Re:Safest at sea? (3, Informative)

mysidia (191772) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321865)

I frequently come across the maxim that the safest place for a ship to be during a storm is at sea, the logic being a ship in port will be thrown against piers, reefs, etc. and destroyed instead of at sea where, presumably, you can sail away from or around danger. Any sailors care to weigh in on this?

The only way a ship at sea is going to properly steer around any danger, is if there are people on board. And those people will be in much more danger than if they were on land.

Damaged ships can be repaired or replaced, by spending money. Lives of lost crewmembers cannot be restored by paying money.

At sea, waves can sink the boat unrecoverably too.

At port, the boat may be at risk of damage, especially if not properly and thoroughly secured at a sufficient distance from reefs.

Re:Safest at sea? (4, Informative)

Longjmp (632577) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321949)

First off, I don't consider myself a sailor, but I have crossed the Atlantic Ocean a few times on my 48 ft boat.
So, let's see: If you are caught in a storm, there's no way going near a coast. Waves will throw you onto the beach (if you are lucky) or onto a cliff. In first case you'll kill a few of your crew. In second, you'll kill all, including yourself.
Same goes for a harbor. No way even trying to come near.
That said, I never encountered a hurricane, and I wonder if the Bounty's captain was either incompetent (as to read forecasts), or simply overwhelmed by the speed of the hurricane (which in a way implies incompetence as well.)
In either way, once caught in a storm, you certainly do not try to reach a harbor.

Re:Safest at sea? (2)

swillden (191260) | about a year and a half ago | (#43322107)

That said, I never encountered a hurricane, and I wonder if the Bounty's captain was either incompetent (as to read forecasts), or simply overwhelmed by the speed of the hurricane

The way I read it, he knew the hurricane was coming and decided to leave port anyway. I don't know that you can even call that incompetence. More like just utter stupidity.

Re:Safest at sea? (1)

Longjmp (632577) | about a year and a half ago | (#43322129)

I tend to agree.
I think he was trying to safe the ship rather than thinking about the crew.
Just my own opinion though.

spa724 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43322217)

First off, I don't consider myself a sailor, but I have crossed the Atlantic Ocean a few times on my 48 ft boat.

Re:Safest at sea? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43322305)

Googling around, I read some speculation that the captain may have been worried that the Bounty was a sitting duck for Sandy in its berth at New London CT, and furthermore, there was no nearby harbor where it could be protected. So he gambled his crew's lives to save his ship. Not sure whether he had a direct financial stake in the boat though, other than his job as captain.

Re:Safest at sea? (2)

mysidia (191772) | about a year and a half ago | (#43322271)

In either way, once caught in a storm, you certainly do not try to reach a harbor.

The point is, if your boat is already at harbor, get your crew off the boat, and leave it properly secured; don't continue with your planned departure.

If you know there is a storm, and you are at sea: don't steer into it, or anywhere near its potential path.

If you're in its path, get out of its path.

If you've gotten into a serious storm already while at sea, may be basically screwed, or you just have to ride it out, because storms can be very large, and you have limited possible chances of escape...

That's not because at sea is the best place to be though, it's because you got stuck there, and there are no safe means of escape available, other than sailng out of reach of the storm (which may not be feasible to do within sufficient time period before the storm blows over)

Re:Safest at sea? (4, Insightful)

DFurno2003 (739807) | about a year and a half ago | (#43322427)

I spent 8 years in the Navy, 2 of which were as a deck seaman on an LHA (800 footer). 4 years were spent in Norfolk VA doing coastal water patrol and the other 2 were spent as harbor security on Guam. I have experienced a few storms underway and i can assure you there is nothing good to be had in a hurricane at sea. Getting underway to escape a harbor (and sail around the storm) is common practice Getting underway and deliberately sailing into a storm to increase speed on a janky vessel with a crew of limited knowledge and experience is simple incompetence.

Re:Safest at sea? (1)

interval1066 (668936) | about a year and a half ago | (#43322077)

Rogue waves are common during a storm and dangerous for ships.

Re:Safest at sea? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43322199)

waves during a storm aren't rogue. They're waves. Rogue waves are the ones that appear suddenly, without warning.

Re:Safest at sea? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43321945)

I seems to me that there's more than a few ships at the bottom of the Atlantic due to being caught in the middle of a hurricane.

Those who can't remember history are doomed to repeat it.

Re:Safest at sea? (4, Insightful)

Above (100351) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321947)

For large ships, where large is defined as unable to be easily lifted out of the water and stored on land, it is safer for them to be out to sea.

But out to sea does not mean in a hurricane. Out to sea means leaving in advance of the storm such that the ship can get well away from the most severe weather. Large commercial ships go nowhere near these sorts of weather events, it's better to sail a week out of the way to go around than risk losing a large boat.

Dude wanted to get where he was going. Had he left and gone due east, towards Europe, the boat would have been no where near this storm when it hit the eastern seaboard. He could have then turned around and gone to his destination, perhaps a week late, but alive after a nice cruise.

Re:Safest at sea? (1)

Rich0 (548339) | about a year and a half ago | (#43322121)

If you're talking about a Tsunami, then sure (assuming you can get reasonably far out in time).

If you're talking about a hurricane, then no. A very large ship would do better at sea then in the dock, but if the ship is docked there is no need for the crew to stay aboard. A hurricane tends to destroy property, but it isn't THAT dangerous to people who aren't near the coastline, especially if they find any kind of shelter. Oh, a few idiots who decide to go driving around town might get hit by flying debris and killed, but they'll fare far better in general than somebody sitting in a boat.

Re:Safest at sea? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43322137)

Dude, you're on Slashdot.

You're not going to find anyone who knows their arse from a stuns'l.

Re:Safest at sea? (2)

Capt. Skinny (969540) | about a year and a half ago | (#43322175)

I frequently come across the maxim that the safest place for a ship to be during a storm is at sea... where, presumably, you can sail away from or around danger

I'm sure the safest place to be during an bank robbery is outside and down the road, but I'm probably not going to run past the guy with the gun to get there.

Re:Safest at sea? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43322511)

Sailor here, I've spent a good portion of my life at sea on sailing craft, my own, and other peoples and doing deliveries.
The maxim of sending ships to sea at the approach of a major storm applies to large naval ships. Mostly as a precaution in case of damage to harbors. To a lesser extent also to large commercial ships, tankers, cargo, container, etc.
Capt.Walbridge committed a broach of one the most important rules of the sea; Never sail to set schedule (unless you are a naval or Coast Guard vessel). The bottom of the sea is littered with boats whose skippers "had to be" someplace by a certain time. He made another mistake in assuming that Sandy was just another Category 2 hurricane that he could easily skirt and pick up speed by catapulting around the outside the eye. He ignored (even though he supposedly mentioned "a Frankingstorm") the week old reports of the hurricane meeting a warm storm front from the west and a nor'easter from northeast.
The ship may have had some maintenance problems, but it is very likely that had he not placed it in the middle of such a huge storm (that was forecast days in advance) it would have made the voyage intact.

Subordination (1)

Mister Liberty (769145) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321703)

Might have saved lives.
Then again, we have to have subordinates -- I mean, ... don't we?

Christian? any relation to Fletcher? (2)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321707)

Lt Fletcher Christian, deputy to Captain William Bligh, commander of HMS Bounty, was the leader of mutineers of the Bounty. Interesting coincidence if there is another Christian on board on the replica. Was he a descendant?

Re:Christian? any relation to Fletcher? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43321747)

Good catch. The CNN article says that Claudene Christian claimed she was a descendant of Fletcher Christian. Almost as if a Hollywood scriptwriter had chosen the two people that died.

Re:Christian? any relation to Fletcher? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43321793)

Yes she was

A live summary of the sinking can be found at []

Mario Vittone also gave a good summary of the hearings []

Guess next time, the crew will... (2)

Nyder (754090) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321805)


Ship's frame was rotted (4, Interesting)

WaxlyMolding (1062736) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321993)

Local media reported here that the ship was in for service at Boothbay, Maine before this occured. The captain was informed that the ship's framing timbers were rotted and needed replacement. They opted to not have the repairs performed and sailed off into a hurricaine.

Watch coast guard Florida (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43322025)

On the weather channel... I know on the dish on demand they have the special episode available about this exact incident and rescue. They also have a few higher ranking coast guard folks who mention they have sailed with the captain before being tall ship fans themselves and this guy grew up boating and was more than competent but with the hurricane changing directions he was also forced to but didn't make it quite in time.

They also interview a few of the crew, many who said this boat has been in worse storms with larger waves and higher winds without incident.

Re:Watch coast guard Florida (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43322417)

I hate to be pedantic, but it's Coast Guard not coast guard.

Coincidence (1)

paiute (550198) | about a year and a half ago | (#43322123)

I was in Boothbay Harbor some weeks before, and the Bounty was in drydock having some work done. We gawked and took a few photos, as we had listened to the whole of the Aubrey/Maturin series and wanted to see something from about that period. The next thing I know I see her on TV, masts sticking out of the water.

One of the details which amused us was that the replica seemed not to have a "seat of ease" up forward.

Re:Coincidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43322223)

Coincidence, that word does not mean what you think it does, its not coincidence that you set out to photograph a ship, and at some point later it sank

Re:Coincidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43322583)

The two events roughly coincided.

Watch the movie. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43322165)

Perhaps there should have been another mutiny???

True Camaraderie (0)

Tablizer (95088) | about a year and a half ago | (#43322627)

It's interesting how almost all the crew stuck up for the captain in the questioning. They knew and mutually understood it was a rickety old ship and that they all joined the crew and all stayed on after the storm announcement for a seat-of-the-pants adventure, forming a tight camaraderie. "Shit happens" one member was quoted.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?