• Announcements

    • UnderDawg

      A Few Simple Rules   05/22/2017

      Sailing Anarchy is a very lightly moderated site. This is by design, to afford a more free atmosphere for discussion. There are plenty of sailing forums you can go to where swearing isn't allowed, confrontation is squelched and, and you can have a moderator finger-wag at you for your attitude. SA tries to avoid that and allow for more adult behavior without moderators editing your posts and whacking knuckles with rulers. We don't have a long list of published "thou shalt nots" either, and this is by design. Too many absolute rules paints us into too many corners. So check the Terms of Service - there IS language there about certain types of behavior that is not permitted. We interpret that lightly and permit a lot of latitude, but we DO reserve the right to take action when something is too extreme to tolerate (too racist, graphic, violent, misogynistic, etc.). Yes, that is subjective, but it allows us discretion. Avoiding a laundry list of rules allows for freedom; don't abuse it. However there ARE a few basic rules that will earn you a suspension, and apparently a brief refresher is in order. 1) Allegations of pedophilia - there is no tolerance for this. So if you make allegations, jokes, innuendo or suggestions about child molestation, child pornography, abuse or inappropriate behavior with minors etc. about someone on this board you will get a time out. This is pretty much automatic; this behavior can have real world effect and is not acceptable. Obviously the subject is not banned when discussion of it is apropos, e.g. talking about an item in the news for instance. But allegations or references directed at or about another poster is verboten. 2) Outing people - providing real world identifiable information about users on the forums who prefer to remain anonymous. Yes, some of us post with our real names - not a problem to use them. However many do NOT, and if you find out someone's name keep it to yourself, first or last. This also goes for other identifying information too - employer information etc. You don't need too many pieces of data to figure out who someone really is these days. Depending on severity you might get anything from a scolding to a suspension - so don't do it. I know it can be confusing sometimes for newcomers, as SA has been around almost twenty years and there are some people that throw their real names around and their current Display Name may not match the name they have out in the public. But if in doubt, you don't want to accidentally out some one so use caution, even if it's a personal friend of yours in real life. 3) Posting While Suspended - If you've earned a timeout (these are fairly rare and hard to get), please observe the suspension. If you create a new account (a "Sock Puppet") and return to the forums to post with it before your suspension is up you WILL get more time added to your original suspension and lose your Socks. This behavior may result a permanent ban, since it shows you have zero respect for the few rules we have and the moderating team that is tasked with supporting them. Check the Terms of Service you agreed to; they apply to the individual agreeing, not the account you created, so don't try to Sea Lawyer us if you get caught. Just don't do it. Those are the three that will almost certainly get you into some trouble. IF YOU SEE SOMEONE DO ONE OF THESE THINGS, please do the following: Refrain from quoting the offending text, it makes the thread cleanup a pain in the rear Press the Report button; it is by far the best way to notify Admins as we will get e-mails. Calling out for Admins in the middle of threads, sending us PM's, etc. - there is no guarantee we will get those in a timely fashion. There are multiple Moderators in multiple time zones around the world, and anyone one of us can handle the Report and all of us will be notified about it. But if you PM one Mod directly and he's off line, the problem will get dealt with much more slowly. Other behaviors that you might want to think twice before doing include: Intentionally disrupting threads and discussions repeatedly. Off topic/content free trolling in threads to disrupt dialog Stalking users around the forums with the intent to disrupt content and discussion Repeated posting of overly graphic or scatological porn content. There are plenty web sites for you to get your freak on, don't do it here. And a brief note to Newbies... No, we will not ban people or censor them for dropping F-bombs on you, using foul language, etc. so please don't report it when one of our members gives you a greeting you may find shocking. We do our best not to censor content here and playing swearword police is not in our job descriptions. Sailing Anarchy is more like a bar than a classroom, so handle it like you would meeting someone a little coarse - don't look for the teacher. Thanks.

Thistle3841

Members
  • Content count

    81
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Thistle3841

  • Rank
    Anarchist
  1. I design components for 3rd party customers that are installed on Boeing & Airbus aircraft. As an industry with dynamic development, the Airline Industry is the last I'd choose. Designing and making something is a fraction of the hurdle. Designing something that may fail at ground level is one thing, get 300 people 10km above the ground in a flying bomb and the regulatory hoops to jump through to merely change the torque setting on a bolt are extensive and onerous. Seriously often more than 90% of the effort. The cost of compliance and certification barriers can make innovation glacial. I have a working knowledge of pneumatics, and suspect there would be more dynamic industries to target for leading edge development. But what about access to the best wind tunnel and modeling facilities? I don't know, but would guess that's the real benefit.
  2. A hybrid between the two options, which Cayard pulled out of his butt. He's telling porkies because if the Jury upholds the application, then the changes Cayard is BS'ing about needs unanimous agreement by all Competitors. And with his stated opposition to them, the "third" mode won't fly. I think it's more legit than that. I think it's a combination of the rudder length, rudder elevator area, and beam limitations. AR has two sets of rudders that meet the original rule and the full safety regs rule, but if the IJ say the max beam issue is out, but the rudder length and area hold, they no longer have a rudder that complies. I see their point, to them it's a moving targeting with lesser resources. They built two new rudders to the safety regs, that won't comply with the rules if the IJ rule in favor of NZ/LR. If the IJ also say the rudders must be a certain length, longer than before, then they have no rudders that can comply. More than anything, I hope a way is found for AR to get on the water, sail, and race. Except the application by ETNZ is seeking a ruling that Murray exceeded his jurisdiction to change the AC72 Class Rules, which means if upheld all changes (of which there are about 7-8) are out. The Jury can't pick and choose which changes Murray can keep: they don't have that jurisdiction either. Not true. Not at all. Changes to the CR require unanimous consent. They got that on all but a few issues. So those changes are all well and find. That's the issues the AR camps speaks to...if they keep several of the changes but not all, they have no rudders that will measure. They will meet the new requirements about length, etc but will not measure if the max beam issues is overturned by the IJ. And to speak to Nutta, no, they wouldn't be better off with the old rules. But, they started modifying rudders to meet ALL of the new 'rules' from the safety proposals. And if any of the changes in the new rules are reversed, while other required ones remain, they have no rudders that will measure. I'm no AR apologist, but I really do hope this works out in some way that they can sail.
  3. A hybrid between the two options, which Cayard pulled out of his butt. He's telling porkies because if the Jury upholds the application, then the changes Cayard is BS'ing about needs unanimous agreement by all Competitors. And with his stated opposition to them, the "third" mode won't fly. I think it's more legit than that. I think it's a combination of the rudder length, rudder elevator area, and beam limitations. AR has two sets of rudders that meet the original rule and the full safety regs rule, but if the IJ say the max beam issue is out, but the rudder length and area hold, they no longer have a rudder that complies. I see their point, to them it's a moving targeting with lesser resources. They built two new rudders to the safety regs, that won't comply with the rules if the IJ rule in favor of NZ/LR. If the IJ also say the rudders must be a certain length, longer than before, then they have no rudders that can comply. More than anything, I hope a way is found for AR to get on the water, sail, and race.
  4. I would say they need to abstain from any judgements on the quality of the competitors and their boats. Their job is to set rules that are safe and fair. When they feel they've done the best job they can, they let the rest play out. Looking at individual teams and saying whether they could race or not is not up to the committee or any jury. Like all sailing, it's the sailors' choice to take the course, every day, every race.
  5. Unfortunately they showed very little of the boats and actual sailing, which is what would generate the most interest. It was all about the tracking and scoring system.
  6. Yah, you are right of course. Farr was perhaps as big an egomaniac as Chris Dickson. I haven't thought about this for a while, but I had some contacts with the bulb design team from Farr back then. I never really agreed with what they said, but here's what they said about Dicko driving a boat with parts they designed: "It's like designing and building the fastest F1 car in the world and you go into the first left hand turn and the driver (Dicko) takes a hard right into the wall for no reason." They didn't think much of his driving or match racing. Could've been ego as much as anything though. I just found it funny.
  7. Probably a good idea. It's pretty clear he had something catastrophic happen to him. Who knows if a rescue swimmer could have saved him, but they should definitely be on hand.