What can happen when you cut off a ferry

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by texasnielsen

... this unfortunate event has facts that all of us (I believe) are currently not privy to. The testimony of both captains (thankfully). When the official report is released we will be able to pat ourselves on the back for "knowing" how smart we were reciting COLREGs, and their appropriate application, who was more guilty of the collision and so forth or we will be publicly silent having to privately acknowledge we didn't know as much as we thought we did.

Until we all get to read the official report on what was a very serious accident, I would offer that getting one's knickers in a knot....

Sorry for the editing but someone will yell if I don't. I hope it didn't distort what you intended to say.

This happens from time to time when there are no real facts to work on. Someone hollers "colregs" and the next thing you know, it's a food fight.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

No, that was not a statement about any imagined tonnage rule.

So once again you have taken something someone did NOT say, and ranted about it.

You should try to figure out why.

I'm not ranting , merely pointing out , your comment is not in compliance with the COLREGS. It may be " common practice" , it may be that in general sailors stay away from heavy metal , but its not the correct application of the COLREGS.

The unfortunate thing is that for craft with very large speed differences , neither applying the COLREGS nor not applying them may result in your demise.

Dave

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

I'm not ranting , merely pointing out , your comment is not in compliance with the COLREGS. It may be " common practice" , it may be that in general sailors stay away from heavy metal , but its not the correct application of the COLREGS.

The unfortunate thing is that for craft with very large speed differences , neither applying the COLREGS nor not applying them may result in your demise.

Dave

Depends on which part of the colregs you're reading, but don't worry your addled head about me. I stay away from heavy metal.

If one reads the colregs in isolation without taking in the bigger picture, one will over-interpret fine points and think they've read the law brilliantly.

And who even knows what "comment" you're talking about, but that statement alone is evidence that you are taking things I've said out of the larger context, which is "Distortion 101" for politicians. You've seen it many times before.

But I understand. You can't back down now. We've even heard silly things like "leeway isn't the same as current." People will do anything to be right, and on line, distorting what someone else has said doesn't seem all that rude or wrong where it would be acutely wrong talking face to face. It's just how the Internet is.

[carstenb]

sorry Raku, a law degree is equilalent to a masters - not a doctorate.

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

Just for those who might not know, "juris doctor" is the law degree. It is three rigorous years of study, which is exactly what my niece, who went from BS straight to Ph.D., did. But you are correct in that JD's are not required to do an independent research paper as part of the graduation requirement, even though such a project is integral to the Ph.D., requiring a tremendous amount of time to complete.

This makes sense, because independent research of the type done in, say, biology or psychology isn't done in law. They do an entirely different type of research and write it up in an entirely different way. It takes special skill to *accurately* read scientific research, and it takes special skill to *accurately* read the law. However, people read both all the time, draw erroneous conclusions, and think they have understood what they read and that their conclusions are correct. The JD degree might technically be considered somewhere between a master's and a Ph.D., but the expectations, except for the fact that the scientific method isn't typically applied to law, makes it far closer to a Ph.D. than a master's degree. When it comes to pay scale, the law professor will be paid as much as someone with a Ph.D. in biology, all other things equal.

Scientific research is based on a speculation ("what if?") followed by a thorough search of the literature to see what research has already been done, followed by the careful formulation of a testable hypothesis. Law approaches research in an entirely different way and the scientific method is not used in legal research. Writing a legal thesis would not improve the quality of lawyers produced, as they do their form of legal research throughout their three year program. It's unnecessary and in fact would be a waste of time. But by the time one has that JD degree, that person knows as much about doing legal research as a newly minted Ph.D. knows about doing scientific research. They both are judged competent to continue research in their fields. At the master's level in a scientific field, the person with the master's degree would be generally considered competent to *participate* in research studies led by a Ph.D. Rarely will research done on the master's level get the respect that research done by someone with a Ph.D. would get, again, all other things being equal.

Scientific research aims toward generalities, while legal research does just the opposite.

I don't claim to be able to read and interpret law accurately. I do know how to read scientific research because I was methodically taught how to in graduate school. Things like standard error of measurement and statistical significance have no applicable use in legal research. People who don't understand those concepts misinterpret medical research all the time. People who aren't methodically trained to read law misinterpret what they read in laws all the time, absolutely convinced that they are right. Both scientific research and laws are more than they seem on the printed page.

[carstenb]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

" I heard a loud crunch. Turning around I saw the ferry hull coming over my stern "

IOW, " I heard a loud crunch. I thought, time sure flies when you're farting around "testing" your electronics.

Gee, I guess I should have kept an eye on that ferry...

+1 I believe he also said he saw the ferry in its dock and started screwing around with his gadgets. duuuh? must have taken at least 15 min for a ferry to undock gather speed and run him down. no one on watch for 15 min? who's to blame?

[TacomaSailor]

"must have taken at least 15 min for a ferry to undock gather speed and run him down. no one on watch for 15 min? "

I am guessing you have never seen a Washington State Super Ferry in action!

In four minutes they can back out of a dock, stop, make a three point turn, and accelerate to 15 knots. If they don't need to make the turn when backing out they just accelerate away from the dock and hit 15 knots in about two minutes.

I have sailed passed a docked Ferry at Kingston, WA and was 1/4 mile from her as I passed abeam behind the ferry. Before my boat is 1/4 mile further along the ferry has passed astern me at 12 knots headed for Edmonds, WA.

They are fast and maneuverable and waste little time running at anything but full speed.

Someone must be at the wheel/tiller of any sailboat within 1/2 mile of a Washington State Ferry anytime that ferry has it's engines running. You just can not take your eyes off them anytime they are within 1/2 mile.

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by carstenb

sorry Raku, a law degree is equilalent to a masters - not a doctorate.

Carsten, maybe that's how it is in your country but here it's actually CALLED doctor -- Juris Doctor, or JD.



That's such a great cartoon!

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by carstenb

+1 I believe he also said he saw the ferry in its dock and started screwing around with his gadgets. duuuh? must have taken at least 15 min for a ferry to undock gather speed and run him down. no one on watch for 15 min? who's to blame?

I would actually agree with you for once except that we don't have all the facts, and we KNOW we don't have all the facts.

Look at how things get distorted here. The media does it even more.

[Wraith_Mac]

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

Just for those who might not know, "juris doctor" is the law degree. It is three rigorous years of study, which is exactly what my niece, who went from BS straight to Ph.D., did. But you are correct in that JD's are not required to do an independent research paper as part of the graduation requirement, even though such a project is integral to the Ph.D., requiring a tremendous amount of time to complete.

This makes sense, because independent research of the type done in, say, biology or psychology isn't done in law. They do an entirely different type of research and write it up in an entirely different way. It takes special skill to *accurately* read scientific research, and it takes special skill to *accurately* read the law. However, people read both all the time, draw erroneous conclusions, and think they have understood what they read and that their conclusions are correct. The JD degree might technically be considered somewhere between a master's and a Ph.D., but the expectations, except for the fact that the scientific method isn't typically applied to law, makes it far closer to a Ph.D. than a master's degree. When it comes to pay scale, the law professor will be paid as much as someone with a Ph.D. in biology, all other things equal.

Scientific research is based on a speculation ("what if?") followed by a thorough search of the literature to see what research has already been done, followed by the careful formulation of a testable hypothesis. Law approaches research in an entirely different way and the scientific method is not used in legal research. Writing a legal thesis would not improve the quality of lawyers produced, as they do their form of legal research throughout their three year program. It's unnecessary and in fact would be a waste of time. But by the time one has that JD degree, that person knows as much about doing legal research as a newly minted Ph.D. knows about doing scientific research. They both are judged competent to continue research in their fields. At the master's level in a scientific field, the person with the master's degree would be generally considered competent to *participate* in research studies led by a Ph.D. Rarely will research done on the master's level get the respect that research done by someone with a Ph.D. would get, again, all other things being equal.

Scientific research aims toward generalities, while legal research does just the opposite.

I don't claim to be able to read and interpret law accurately. I do know how to read scientific research because I was methodically taught how to in graduate school. Things like standard error of measurement and statistical significance have no applicable use in legal research. People who don't understand those concepts misinterpret medical research all the time. People who aren't methodically trained to read law misinterpret what they read in laws all the time, absolutely convinced that they are right. Both scientific research and laws are more than they seem on the printed page.

LOL,
Will you at some point attempt to actually answer my questions?
I actually do know what academic qualifications are and though retired still actively participate in peer reviewed research projects to assist my wife, a senior academic [BSocSc, MA [Anth], PhD, AsPro] in her work.
Professors are paid according to that specific position, whether they have a PhD or not depends on the job description.
It [the position] in no way automatically bestows a PhD on the incumbent though an Honorary Doctorate may be awarded by an institution and specific to that institution.
Now you have a nice day as well.
Cheers,
Mac

[carstenb]

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

Just for those who might not know, "juris doctor" is the law degree. It is three rigorous years of study, which is exactly what my niece, who went from BS straight to Ph.D., did. But you are correct in that JD's are not required to do an independent research paper as part of the graduation requirement, even though such a project is integral to the Ph.D., requiring a tremendous amount of time to complete.

This makes sense, because independent research of the type done in, say, biology or psychology isn't done in law. They do an entirely different type of research and write it up in an entirely different way. It takes special skill to *accurately* read scientific research, and it takes special skill to *accurately* read the law. However, people read both all the time, draw erroneous conclusions, and think they have understood what they read and that their conclusions are correct. The JD degree might technically be considered somewhere between a master's and a Ph.D., but the expectations, except for the fact that the scientific method isn't typically applied to law, makes it far closer to a Ph.D. than a master's degree. When it comes to pay scale, the law professor will be paid as much as someone with a Ph.D. in biology, all other things equal.

Scientific research is based on a speculation ("what if?") followed by a thorough search of the literature to see what research has already been done, followed by the careful formulation of a testable hypothesis. Law approaches research in an entirely different way and the scientific method is not used in legal research. Writing a legal thesis would not improve the quality of lawyers produced, as they do their form of legal research throughout their three year program. It's unnecessary and in fact would be a waste of time. But by the time one has that JD degree, that person knows as much about doing legal research as a newly minted Ph.D. knows about doing scientific research. They both are judged competent to continue research in their fields. At the master's level in a scientific field, the person with the master's degree would be generally considered competent to *participate* in research studies led by a Ph.D. Rarely will research done on the master's level get the respect that research done by someone with a Ph.D. would get, again, all other things being equal.

Scientific research aims toward generalities, while legal research does just the opposite.

I don't claim to be able to read and interpret law accurately. I do know how to read scientific research because I was methodically taught how to in graduate school. Things like standard error of measurement and statistical significance have no applicable use in legal research. People who don't understand those concepts misinterpret medical research all the time. People who aren't methodically trained to read law misinterpret what they read in laws all the time, absolutely convinced that they are right. Both scientific research and laws are more than they seem on the printed page.

Following this logic, a masters in , say, english literature, medieval history, philosophy etc, is also a Ph.D. These also do not (normally) utilize statistical analysis or the scientific method.

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by Wraith_Mac

LOL,
Will you at some point attempt to actually answer my questions?
I actually do know what academic qualifications are and though retired still actively participate in peer reviewed research projects to assist my wife, a senior academic [BSocSc, MA [Anth], PhD, AsPro] in her work.
Professors are paid according to that specific position, whether they have a PhD or not depends on the job description.
It [the position] in no way automatically bestows a PhD on the incumbent though an Honorary Doctorate may be awarded by an institution and specific to that institution.
Now you have a nice day as well.
Cheers,
Mac

No, Carsten, I am not going to "answer your questions." You just want to bicker and I'm not playing.

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by carstenb

Following this logic, a masters in , say, english literature, medieval history, philosophy etc, is also a Ph.D. These also do not (normally) utilize statistical analysis or the scientific method.

You are making it up as you go along so there's no way to discuss with you. I am so sorry that you still are unfamiliar with the differences between legal research and that done in history, etc.

You don't get it, but that's not stopping you. Can't help you there.

[psneeld]

It cracks me up when people make posts and then spend 10X as many posts defending easily seen points of error on their part...rookie statements to boot....then get all wound up when their errors are pointed out.

Funny how some of us have actually been applying the COLREGs for many decades as professional mariners/instructors of the COLREGS ....then we are told ..."If one reads the colregs in isolation without taking in the bigger picture, one will over-interpret fine points and think they've read the law brilliantly"...

I certainly see why some people think these forums are may more entertainment than educational...the total amount of garbage clearly exceeds the good stuff. Like after opening presents....the left over packaging is mind boggling.

[Coops]

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

No, Carsten, I am not going to "answer your questions." You just want to bicker and I'm not playing.

Wasn't Carsten that you quoted Raku.

Coops.

[boatman61]

One thing I learnt at school... and that includes RYA Theory up to Ocean Yacht Master...
The Teacher is NEVER WRONG.... the pupil just does not understand the finer points...

But... before the run down sailboat skippers statement was posted there was one hell of a lot of crap being spouted by all and sundry..
But... WTF.. its CF...