×

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!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

166 comments

Technically it is not a ship... (5, Interesting)

Stolpskott (2422670) | about 4 months ago | (#45605973)

As it has no motive power of its own (it has to be towed into position), it is not really a ship. But it is still a really cool feat of engineering, designed to ride out the typhoon season off the Australian coast and keep LNG production going for 25 years or so...
However, Shell are apparently building an even bigger one as well. Maybe they are trying to have a ship that is longer than the Burj Khalifa? ;)

Re:Technically it is not a ship... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45605999)

So it's an artificial island?

Re:Technically it is not a ship... (5, Informative)

jcr (53032) | about 4 months ago | (#45606381)

Technically, it's a barge.

-jcr

Re:Technically it is not a ship... (5, Funny)

phrostie (121428) | about 4 months ago | (#45606675)

to me it looks like a cross between the titanic and the Hindenburg.

stand back.

Re:Technically it is not a ship... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45606707)

Titanic/Hindenburg full of gas, what could possibly go wrong?

Re:Technically it is not a ship... (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about 4 months ago | (#45607107)

Not a lot unless they paint it with paint consisting of chemicals we would later usr as rocket fuel.

Re:Technically it is not a ship... (1)

Threni (635302) | about 4 months ago | (#45606753)

And also, pedantically, it's not the first time the world's largest ship (or barge) has been floated; they all have.

Re:Technically it is not a ship... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45606777)

technically, signing your "name" at the end of you comment while using the SAME letters as your user name is a pretty useless thing to do.

Re:Technically it is not a ship... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45606961)

or a battle tub? [gizmag.com]

Re:Technically it is not a ship... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45607061)

Shell, we have to go back to the island!

Re: Technically it is not a ship... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45606009)

"Achktually" *Nerdy voice* no one is being as ANALytical about it, it looks like a ship and floats. I am sure many ships don't propel themselves, row boats to sail boats use other means besides being self propelled. Get over yourself and enjoy the article and a great feat in engineering.

Re: Technically it is not a ship... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45606107)

Row boats and sail boats are self propelled because the oars or sails are on the boat itself. A big boat that is not self propelled is called a barge.

Re: Technically it is not a ship... (1)

somersault (912633) | about 4 months ago | (#45606143)

Barges have to be flat bottomed, though I'm guessing this thing may be flat bottomed. Barges can also have their own propulsion, for example the river homes that people pilot around the canals here in the UK are barges.

Re: Technically it is not a ship... (4, Informative)

Joce640k (829181) | about 4 months ago | (#45606413)

Barges can also have their own propulsion, for example the river homes that people pilot around the canals here in the UK are barges.

Those things were pulled by horses when they started out, hence "barges".

Adding a motor made them into "boats".

Re: Technically it is not a ship... (1)

somersault (912633) | about 4 months ago | (#45606573)

From the definitions I can find, a barge is always a boat, whether it's powered or not.

And from Wikipedia, this looks like another case of the US having a different perception of things from the rest of the world, because it sounds like all your barges are basically just trailers for tugboats.

Re: Technically it is not a ship... (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about 4 months ago | (#45607087)

Barges have to be flat bottomed, though I'm guessing this thing may be flat bottomed. Barges can also have their own propulsion ...

So far I've check Wikipedia, the Free Dictionary and Merriam Webster (sorry if those last two cover the American Language rather than English). They all agree a barge may be powered, but they disagree on whether it has to be flat bottomed or just usually is.

the river homes that people pilot around the canals here in the UK are barges

In the US they're called houseboats, but British usage still jibes (albeit grandiosely) with definitions of barge other than "big ugly thing for cargo".

b : a large motorboat supplied to the flag officer of a flagship
c : a roomy pleasure boat; especially : a boat of state elegantly furnished and decorated

Re:Technically it is not a ship... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45606033)

RTFA: "three 6,700-hp thrusters at the rear of the Prelude"

Just because they're not intended for transportation doesn't mean they're not there.

Re:Technically it is not a ship... (1)

PPalmgren (1009823) | about 4 months ago | (#45606743)

That's like hooking a horse up to a car without an engine and saying its intended for transportation. Container ships around 80% of that size need an order of magnitude more horsepower to function.

Re:Technically it is not a ship... (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 4 months ago | (#45606949)

but that's exactly what some people in developing countries do and it's for transportation and it's a CARriage so uhh ah.

it doesn't need to work as a container ship and I didn't think it was said to be, but it fills the tickboxes for a boat..

sure it isn't going far in a hurry but still.

Re:Technically it is not a ship... (4, Funny)

Snotnose (212196) | about 4 months ago | (#45607309)

RTFA: "three 6,700-hp thrusters at the rear of the Prelude"

That Honda must go hella fast, unless it has to haul your mom around.

Re:Technically it is not a ship... (4, Insightful)

Stoopiduk (1593855) | about 4 months ago | (#45606101)

Prelude has three 6,700 horsepower thrusters for weathervaning. Mightn't be the best way of getting it around, but if they can pivot the bugger about the mooring turret, I'm sure they could move it around in some dreadfully slow and awkward fashion.

Re:Technically it is not a ship... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45606173)

yeh, about a fourth of the power of a Maersk Triple E class, the next largest ship in the world

Re:Technically it is not a ship... (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | about 4 months ago | (#45606519)

No one said it could get anywhere fast. It can run 2 of 3 thrusters to turn, so I'd expect it could run 2 of 3 thrusters to go straight. Anything faster than stopped is still movement.

Re:Technically it is not a ship... (1)

flyneye (84093) | about 4 months ago | (#45606535)

Like a 76 Chrysler New Yorker with a 225 slant 6 cyl....
It's a Low Rider.

Re:Technically it is not a ship... (1)

TWX (665546) | about 4 months ago | (#45607253)

Like a 76 Chrysler New Yorker with a 225 slant 6 cyl

A friend if mine had a Canadian-market '68 Dodge Polara fastback that had been imported to the United States. He bought for his first-time-driver son, it came factory-equipped with the RG 225ci slant six. He pulled the factory motor and dropped in a G 170ci slant six and put in shorter gears in the differential, he didn't want him going too fast. Car strained to reach 65mph on the freeway.

His son wasn't real happy with him for a long time over that...

Technically it's not typhoon season... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45606879)

It is cyclone season.

Re:Technically it is not a ship... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45606989)

There is something much more serious here. The amount of LNG contained in any one location defines the danger of the facility. Large LNG containers like are typical of a ship with just 1 LNG cell would if breached explode with up to 25 Mega Tons of fire. To concentrate so much energy in one location as to fill maybe 10 or 20 such containers is beyond insanely dangerous. Imagine a tidal wave situation like hit Japan and then the breach of such a ship in the wave. Now you get fire for 50 miles inland! I really think the people of the earth should take most seriously this issue. How about a terrorist attack against the boat!?

Could you imagine killing 5 or 10 million people with a single terrorist attack. The construction of such concentrated devices might make "economic sense" but it is plain up insane in the world where things can and do go wrong. Remember this is a barge. Suppose we get a typhoon and rough sea conditions where it cannot be towed! This is just insanity!

Re:Technically it is not a ship... (1)

slimdave (710334) | about 4 months ago | (#45607189)

"25 Mega Tons of fire" is an interesting way of quantifying the energy in something less than 600,000 tons of LNG. Considering your estimate of 5 or 10 million deaths, along with overuse of exclamation marks, I think that you might be a little bit unbalanced.

Re:Technically it is not a ship... (1)

petermgreen (876956) | about 4 months ago | (#45607239)

The article is light on details but it does mention the vessel having three thrusters at the rear. Not clear whether those are just for direction control or if they can be used to move the whole vessel.

And they used to say... (4, Funny)

Notabadguy (961343) | about 4 months ago | (#45605997)

It's not the size of the ship, it's the motion in the ocean....

Apparently, it *is* all about the size of the ship!

Re:And they used to say... (1)

Notabadguy (961343) | about 4 months ago | (#45606001)

Even funnier that it's the South Koreans proving that they do indeed have the biggest....boats.

Re:And they used to say... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45606073)

You know what's going to be the next step: North Korea builds a two miles long and half mile wide ship, and when it breaks apart it's going to be blamed on capitalist sabotage.

Re:And they used to say... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45606081)

They would starve otherwise. South Korea's economy basically relies on their engineering ability.

Re:And they used to say... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45606199)

and that's why there is no Korean involved in the actual engineering...
it's all being designed and engineered in Europe.

Re:And they used to say... (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about 4 months ago | (#45606273)

You say that like it's a bad thing. Isn't that the kind of skills-based economy most of the developed world is desperately trying to assemble?

Re:And they used to say... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45606497)

No, I'm saying it like it's an impressive thing. With N. Korea not being a real trading partner, everything is shipped in and out. Their offshore engineers are some of the best in the world. They are truly amazing. (Their ability to host two of the biggest international ocean engineering conferences in the world next year should speak to that... the fact that they are both at the same time, does not speak highly of their scheduling abilities, though.)

Re:And they used to say... (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about 4 months ago | (#45607159)

Their offshore engineers are some of the best in the world. They are truly amazing. (Their ability to host two of the biggest international ocean engineering conferences in the world next year should speak to that... the fact that they are both at the same time, does not speak highly of their scheduling abilities, though.)

Doesn't sound much different from various other communist countries, like the old USSR. Great engineering hampered by idiotic bureaucracy. The reason for the success of free countries isn't better engineers or scientists, but in greater freedom to tell people where to stick it (a joke, but of the "more truth is said in jest" kind).

Re:And they used to say... (1)

Talderas (1212466) | about 4 months ago | (#45607689)

I think you might be confused. He's talking about S. Korea. Based on national boundaries, the only land trading partner that S. Korea has is N. Korea. Because of that the vast majority of S. Korean trade goods, both in an out, pass through seaports.

Re:And they used to say... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45606599)

It may be worth pointing out that, though in general Korean engineers are quite good, engineers are not as highly respected in Korean society as they are in say, American society.

Re:And they used to say... (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about 4 months ago | (#45607123)

They would starve otherwise. South Korea's economy basically relies on their engineering ability.

Do you have anything to support that statement.

Re:And they used to say... (1)

Titus Groan (2834723) | about 4 months ago | (#45606907)

I always thought it was about a Captain that could keep his ship in the harbour long enough to get everyone off.

amazing indeed (1, Interesting)

Raf (2925113) | about 4 months ago | (#45606003)

I'm cucurious what these types of floating superstructures do to the ecology around them. The environmental impact of their sheer existence in the water is potentially staggering.

Re:amazing indeed (1)

Stoopiduk (1593855) | about 4 months ago | (#45606077)

Interesting question - the mooring points are likely to have a direct impact wherever they're attached to the seabed, as will all of the subsea equipment and the engineering work to secure them in place.

The platform itself will, I imagine, have a minimal impact aside from noise and vibration. There have been whispers of regulating ship noise and vibration for the protection of the marine environment at IMO for some time, but nothing has come forward yet or is likely to in the next couple of years.

There will be increased marine traffic from shuttle tankers and crew/support vessels, but oil majors are largely pretty careful about the vessels they employ, especially for a project with as high profile as this.

Once it's in place, I doubt we'll ever hear too much about prelude, unless it goes horribly, horribly wrong.

Yah... stupid much? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45606111)

It is a large ship compared to humans, compared to an ocean, it is a speck.

Oh wait, a twitter response. Gotcha, IQ below room temperature.

Re:Yah... stupid much? (2)

Stoopiduk (1593855) | about 4 months ago | (#45606647)

Commenter specifically said the area around it, not the whole ocean.

You don't bed down subsea apparatus, anchor the largest floating structure in the world, start offloading shuttle tankers full of LNG and transport supplies and crew for such a installtion without affecting the surrounding ecology in some way.

I for one welcome the curiosity of the original post over your off-topic twitter-bashing and (hopefully) deliberate misinterpretation of the commenter's point.

Re:amazing indeed (5, Informative)

WWJohnBrowningDo (2792397) | about 4 months ago | (#45606321)

Do you even know how offshore natural gas is processed?

Natural gas is pressurized at the offshore platform and pumped all the way to the shore using a long pipeline. Then an onshore LNG processing plant cleans and liquefies it and pump it back out to LNG tankers.

This thing is designed to replace the long undersea pipeline and the onshore LNG processing plant and its associated dock. One of the reasons why this monstrosity is being built is precisely because it's more environmentally friendly than the alternative. A single offshore facility can replace multiple onshore facilities since the offshore facility is mobile.

Re:amazing indeed (1)

Stoopiduk (1593855) | about 4 months ago | (#45606705)

... and therefore, we shouldn't consider the impact of the floating facility on the environment around them.

I agree, Prelude is a good idea and from what I understand is by a way the lesser of two evils, I am still interested in the effect it will have on the area it's deployed in.

Re:amazing indeed (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about 4 months ago | (#45606863)

A floating platform in deep waters will, all things being equal, have a lower environmental impact that placing the same structure on a shoreline.

Re:amazing indeed (1)

Stoopiduk (1593855) | about 4 months ago | (#45606911)

I don't understand how you've been upvoted for reinstating a point I've already agreed with.

Just because it's a lesser impact doesn't mean it's not an interesting one.

Re:amazing indeed (1)

Alioth (221270) | about 4 months ago | (#45606523)

Certainly in the Gulf of Mexico, the various platforms and structures provide a pretty rich environment for marine life. The best fishing spots are all near the various platforms since the underwater parts of their structures provide places for various plants and animals to make their homes (and thus attracting the fish that feed of this). I would imagine the mooring points for this barge will do the same.

Of course it all goes horribly wrong for this environment if there is a spill.

Re:amazing indeed (1)

danbert8 (1024253) | about 4 months ago | (#45607111)

More for the life in the air and on land than the stuff in the water. A spill of LNG would boil pretty rapidly and gas off primarily methane into the atmosphere. Methane is lighter than air, so it would quickly rise and lead to an increase in the greenhouse effect until broken down. GLOBAL WARMING ALARM!!!

Unless there is an ignition source... In that case, BOOM!

Factually incorrect (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45606007)

which upon completion will be the largest floating facility ever built

Clearly they have never cleaned out a public toilet at a Mexican place after taco Tuesdayâ¦.

Worlds biggest shipyards (5, Interesting)

antsbull (2648931) | about 4 months ago | (#45606021)

I saw a documentary on them a couple of nights ago, and this shipyard is averaging a super-tanker every 3.5 days if you divide the number of super-tankers they will build this year. Absolutely stunning the technology, skills, planning and productivity that they are managing there. This wouldn't be achievable in a western country thanks to unions and the terrible productivity and project overruns that come with western societies.

Re:Worlds biggest shipyards (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45606121)

True. It is only possible with far eastern slave labor.

Re:Worlds biggest shipyards (1)

bob_super (3391281) | about 4 months ago | (#45606155)

These slaves have the best internet connectivity on the planet!
Panem et circenses to the Nth power!

Re:Worlds biggest shipyards (2, Funny)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 4 months ago | (#45606309)

I suppose unions can point to their triumphs in Detroit instead.

Re:Worlds biggest shipyards (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45606831)

Detroit was destroyed by racism, not unions.

Re:Worlds biggest shipyards (2)

Stoopiduk (1593855) | about 4 months ago | (#45606719)

That's not how shipbuilding works. The cheapest labour is not a way to success. Chinese yards are generally not as successful as the Korean and Singaporean yards that pay better, are more efficient and more advanced.

Ship owners can ill-afford to have shoddily-built ships anymore, especially in the tanker sector if they're looking to work with the oil majors.

Re:Worlds biggest shipyards (1)

_Spirit (23983) | about 4 months ago | (#45607207)

These shipyards also can't cut any corners with worker safety. The Shell HSSE officer wasn't in the video for laughs. He's on site to ensure that they work according to Shell's global safety guidelines which are better than the standard that a lot of companies in the west have locally.

These guys are taken seriously because not complying with their instructions can potentially lose the shipyard its contract. (and yes Shell actually terminates contracts for that reason, it's not like the major electronics manufacturers)

Re:Worlds biggest shipyards (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 4 months ago | (#45606133)

they do a 100 super tankers in a year?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tankers [wikipedia.org]

care to link to that documentary, since that list is awful short compared to them pumping out 100 of world biggest class tankers in a year. at 1 billion a pop that's 100 billion for the shipyard.......

Re:Worlds biggest shipyards (1)

Sique (173459) | about 4 months ago | (#45606193)

If you look at the list, a) it mentions being totally incomplete and b) look at the BP tankers alone, each line consists of several ships in the same class.

Re:Worlds biggest shipyards (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45606237)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_tanker#Flag_states mentions ~4300 supertankers are currently registered. so if 100 are built per year then it would take 43 years to replace the fleet (assuming constant size). so the number seems plausible.

Re:Worlds biggest shipyards (2)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 4 months ago | (#45606813)

These things get built while lawyers in the US are still filing delays over environmental impact statements in the US.

True story: Lawyers have been fighting longer, delaying the dredging of some bays in the US, to make them 5 feet deeper, so they can accommodate the new "Superpanamax" ships (the Panama canal is being expanded on the max size it can handle) than the original Panama Canal took to build.

Meanwhile, China is building an even bigger canal next door, for even bigger ships.

The US has lost, because it has tied its own hands with regulations, as certainly as if we were a dictatorship with kickbacks at every level, from buildings to drivers licenses.

Re:Worlds biggest shipyards (1)

Stoopiduk (1593855) | about 4 months ago | (#45606849)

Tankers represent 2% of Samsung's current backlog according to their IR report.

If we take super tanker to mean VLCC, that's anything over 200,000dwt (ULCCs are around 320,000 dwt, so I'm being generous). If they were churning out 100, that would be 20,000,000 dwt per annum.

According to Braemar Seascope, global tanker deliveries for all tankers over 27,000 dwt peaked at just under 55,000,000 dwt in 2011, with around 32,000,000 dwt in deliveries expected this year, not accounting for slippage. Samsung are not producing 100 super tankers a year.

Deletions from the fleet are under 10,000,000 dwt per annum. Overcapacity is already bad, I'm glad we don't live in the world that documentary was covering.

Re:Worlds biggest shipyards (5, Insightful)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 4 months ago | (#45606871)

SK has unions. Also French and Japanese companies seem to be able to build things on time and on budget. Ditto the Germans, who are also unionised.

It's a cultural thing, nothing to do with unions.

Re:Worlds biggest shipyards (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45607435)

It is culture, overestimate under deliver. I would much prefer they set realistic deadlines, cost, etc. It's not like our productivity is low in fact its one of the highest. So to me its money, keep more for themselves when they should be hiring more so they can get the dang job done.

Re: Worlds biggest shipyards (1)

Badblackdog (1211452) | about 4 months ago | (#45607251)

I call Bullshit on a supertanker every 3.5 days. Dude, really, think about it. I am not going to be a citation douche, but you need to revisit that statement.

Taunt the seasteaders. (1, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 4 months ago | (#45606109)

This is what you can build when you have real money, a real business model and a real plan instead of just a fantasy of a libertarian utopia.

More like what you get by ripping Timor blind (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45606181)

Read the news

Re:Taunt the seasteaders. (2)

Sockatume (732728) | about 4 months ago | (#45606185)

Yes, companies with billions of dollars can build bigger things than people with less money. You've shaken my perceptions of seasteading (whatever that is) to the core.

Re:Taunt the seasteaders. (3, Informative)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 4 months ago | (#45606293)

It's a movement that aims to escape the reach of existing governments by setting up semi-autonomous permanent settlements at sea. A mixture of libertarian idealists ('A place free from overgrown government, where the right of individuals to live free is valued!') and free market enterprise idealists ('A place where we can locate our call centers and offices free from taxation, minimum wage, health and safety and working hours regulations.').

The only group with a halfway-viable business plan are Blueseed, who hope to use their ship as a legal workaround for US immigration law - station it just in international water, allowing people 'visiting' the country on a tourist visa to commute by ferry and technically not be illegally working in the US. It's not attracted enough investment, because it's a high-risk venture: Even if the ship works and is financially viable, it's likely the government would act quickly to change the law and close this 'loophole.'

Re:Taunt the seasteaders. (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about 4 months ago | (#45606393)

That concept would make more sense in an area where living on land is super cheap and working on the flaoting island pays you considerably high.

I mean, why should *I* as a german work on such an island and just earn a *normal* US wage and then spen that *in the US*?

The only interesting point here would be the taxing ...

Re:Taunt the seasteaders. (1)

alexander_686 (957440) | about 4 months ago | (#45607585)

Let’s see – “normal German wages” is what? No minimum wage. Over a million earn less than 5 euro an hour. And you can’t buy (and thus play) Castle Wolfenstein?

I kid, of course. Seasteadings only works if one is hard core liberation. It is more of a philosophical statement (or is it theological statement?) then a rational economic plan.

Re:Taunt the seasteaders. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45607699)

Well, you're a fucking German -- we all know you guys are so rich you have money to burn on such projects as listening to neonazi music! ;)

Now if you were, say, an Indian, US wages might start to look a lot better -- particularly if you had the discipline to spend only what you must ashore in the US, and save the rest to be spent later in India or somewhere else with low cost-of-living. It all depends what your baseline is whether this would be a big step up or a big step down.

Re:Taunt the seasteaders. (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about 4 months ago | (#45607231)

use their ship as a legal workaround for US immigration law

What a shame we won't put the navy to good use. It would also be a great opportunity to test the Mk 48 ADCAP under real conditions.

Re:Taunt the seasteaders. (1)

citizenr (871508) | about 4 months ago | (#45606283)

dont worry, it will be used as a commodity market instrument by people that never really worked they entire life
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/04/1071052/-About-those-offshore-tankers-that-Koch-Industries-use-to-to-cash-in-when-the-Price-is-Right [dailykos.com]

Re:Taunt the seasteaders. (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about 4 months ago | (#45607185)

by people that never really worked [in their] entire life

That's the politics of envy. Screwing people and pushing propaganda are hard work. I think the Koch's and their ilk are undercompensated. You should get on your knees and thank [insert preferred deity] for these job creators.

Re:Taunt the seasteaders. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45607225)

Wow, talk about Poe's law...

Re:Taunt the seasteaders. (1)

LoRdTAW (99712) | about 4 months ago | (#45606793)

......And you don't have a greedy, egotistical douche bag looking to maximize profits in the short term for shareholders (his/her buddies) and bail out when the seas get rough (e.g. after they are done fucking every last penny out of the company).

The Asians have a sense of honor in their society and that is what makes them successful. A large, long lasting and profitable company that takes pride in its work is worth more to a CEO than the bottom line or how big his yacht is or how many whores he can screw. There is pride in the companys success, not their personal success. Maybe I am wrong but this is what I see and why Asian companies are always ahead of the game.

Re:Taunt the seasteaders. (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about 4 months ago | (#45607269)

A large, long lasting and profitable company that takes pride in its work is worth more to a CEO than the bottom line or how big his yacht is or how many whores he can screw.

Either that, or the board, the stockholders, and the employees keep his ass in line.

It is world largest temporarily (1)

hotfireball (948064) | about 4 months ago | (#45606549)

It is world largest, unless it will steered onto riffs and sink, like Costa Concordia. Then something world-bigger will be needed to get that wreck out.

A big boat eh? (1)

skovnymfe (1671822) | about 4 months ago | (#45606695)

Are there any emission or pollution laws that are enforceable when you're on international seas?

Re:A big boat eh? (2)

Stoopiduk (1593855) | about 4 months ago | (#45606899)

Yup, the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) has a growing list of environmental regulations that apply to every ship in the world.

Most people will be surprised how good oil companies are when it comes to employing decent, environmental sound ships for their projects. Generally the majors don't have their own fleets now, so charter in tonnage, and have very high standards and a ridiculous number of inspections for the vessels they employ.

Admittedly, this is largely because they have caused some huge catastrophes in the past.

Described using wrong units. meters?? WTH?? (1, Funny)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about 4 months ago | (#45606737)

It bothers me people easily cast aside traditions and commonly accepted norms and blithely and almost nonchalantly use new yardsticks. There is a 3000 year old tradition to describe un-powered floating tubs by saying how many cubits long, how many cubits wide and how many cubits tall these tubs are.

Well, at least they could have used the next best length unit, football fields. But, no, they would not use something so familiar to us and readily imaginable by all of us as the lengths football fields. True, I concede, using how many skyscrapers it would dwarf once you image it standing on its end or how big a building it could enclose in its shell, etc would somewhat ameliorate the use of such abstruse exotic and non standard units as meters.

Re:Described using wrong units. meters?? WTH?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45606803)

I hereby propose to use nanolightseconds as new basic unit of length. It sounds scientific, metric and is almost exactly one foot long!

Where is your god now, Europeans?

Re:Described using wrong units. meters?? WTH?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45607165)

the lengths football fields

What kind of football?

Why Ain't it Round? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45606967)

Just out of curiosity, is there any particular reason this monster has to be one big long vessel? Could it still serve it's purpose if it was, say, a bunch of shorter hulls "lashed together in a rough-hewn manner"?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...