Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pheilman_ who wrote (94621)	1/10/2005 11:03:59 PM
From: Bill Ulrich	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793791

Hello pheilman, Thanks for clarifying a lot of sub-techie material in clear detail. Makes a lot more sense. I have a question about one part: "Perhaps the error came at the end of a long run, perhaps the sea mount is new. The captain is still going to, correctly, get blamed." I think I understand the "long run" part -- the inertial systems gain some error over time and must be re-set at a certain point? What about "new sea mount"? Does that happen often? I understand the sub-oceanic geography can change, especially with this stuff in the Indian recently. It would be significant enough to essentially make a mountain that wasn't there before on the maps? In either case, I'd like to better understand the Naval protocol on the Capt.'s responsibility. A new sea mount seems fairly out of his control. A "long run" may have been ordered outside of his discretion and he was obligated to follow through? How should the Capt. persevere in circumstances outside of his control? Or is there an alternate explanation that is within his control where he went wrong?