The Germans sank the Double Negative in night action off Gibraltar.
Double Negative is a good name for a catamaran.
Still, my favourite boat name was a small open sloop called Fred.
So did the French.
I can not not post on the Straight Dope. :dubious:
Regular maintenance and I think the breech was left open to allow the water to run out.
The lighter weapons (e.g., machine guns) were removed from their mounts and stored in the submarine before submerging. The larger deck gun was left outside.
FYI - The movie U-571 was partially based on the story of U-505, which is on display (and can be toured) at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago.
Not particularly, since the parts of speech are completely different.
She isn’t unattractive. Colts fans won’t be unhappy tomorrow.
As Johnny noted, he made a mistake, had he not then it would read as previously stated and would not make logical sense.
The problem with double negatives is that they are not used properly most of the time. When used properly, they make logical sense when analyzed. Once upon a time they were used for emphasis, but that was 400 years ago… a lot has changed since then.
Wikipedia is not a good source for stuff like this.
Here is a better source:
Interesting. You say Wiki is not a good source, then cite a source that says essentially the same thing as Wiki, which is that a double negative generally makes a positive.
or
:rolleyes:
?
I can’t tell
Read it again :*Such constructions are standard in many other languages and in fact were once wholly acceptable in English. Thus, Chaucer could say of the Friar, “Ther nas no man nowher so vertuous”; and Shakespeare could allow Viola to say of her heart, “Nor never none/Shall mistress of it be, save I alone.” In spite of this noble history, grammarians since the Renaissance have objected to the double negative in English. In their eagerness to make English conform to formal logic, they conceived and promulgated the notion that two negatives destroy each other and make a positive. This rule, vigorously advocated by teachers of grammar and writing, has become established as a fundamental of standard usage. *
In other words, it’s s silly “rule” made up by people who have only a little authority over their own students. It’s not based upon English or even the real world usage.
There are many "rules’ of grammar that are wrong. This happens to be one of them.
For example http://www.yourdictionary.com/grammar-rules/Ending-a-Sentence-with-a-Preposition.html
"*At one time, schoolchildren were taught that a sentence should never end with a preposition. However, this is a philosophy actually associated with Latin grammar. While many aspects of Latin have made their way into the English language, this particular grammar rule is not suited for modern English usage.
There are times when trying to avoid ending a sentence with a preposition creates unnecessary and awkward phrasing. For example, Winston Churchill once reportedly exclaimed, “That is the sort of thing up with which I will not put!” to mock someone who criticized him for ending a sentence with a preposition. Since the purpose of writing is to clearly communicate your thoughts and ideas, it’s perfectly acceptable to end a sentence with a preposition if the alternative would create confusion.*"
It was a rule, it was/is taught, it is still espoused by many prescriptivists. It’s still wrong. Same with double-negatives. Now, I am not saying double-negatives are fine in formal speech- generally no. But two negatives do not make a positive. If they did, then 3 negs would make a negative right?
http://www.miss-write.com/2008/say-it-aint-so-grammar-rules-you-can-break/
http://www.xeromag.com/cheat.html
*Never use a double negative
Bishop Lowth, who gave us the rule against splitting infinitives, also gave us this rule. He believed that double negatives should not be used because they cancel each other out, and in some cases it's true; "I'm not doing nothing" means "I am doing something."
However, the opposite of a negative is not always a positive. "I did not make it through Doom 3 unscathed" is a double negative, yet its meaning is clear, and it's much less awkward than "I made it through Doom 3 scathed," if indeed you can even use "scathed" that way. Again, Shakespeare used the odd double negative, and I am not unimpressed by that. A double negative, used correctly, offers shades of meaning; a double negative does not always mean the same thing as a positive.*
Grammar quibbles aside, this thread makes me want to break out Silent Hunter III again and give it a go.
Silent Hunter 5 is due out soon. Edit: Specifically, type VII boats, so it’s back to the Atlantic like SH3. They’re focusing on modelling Type 7 boats completely, so IIRC that’s the only playable boat - but they model them completely so that you can walk around the boat in first person view and see every nook and crannie. I’m looking forward to it.
Eh. I kind of got burned on SH: IV; I’ve never gotten it to work right on my PC, in spite of meeting (and in most cases, exceeding) minimum system requirements.
SH:III is the most recent incarnation that I can get to work properly. I rock the Type XXI. Like shooting puppies in a basket.
Being a video game, I’m probably a LOT more agressive than any real-life U-boat captain ever thought of being.
You could make yourself play more realistically by giving more consequences to your action. Invest time in a career and make a rule that if you die in the game, that career is over - no reloads. Crank up the realism settings. It’s hard to pull yourself away from viable targets, but if you start playing with that mindset you can - and it’s more interesting.
Very OT: But if you really want immersion and realism in SH3, install the supermod GWX3.0 Gold. Things become very dangerous very fast with this one 
Also, give a wolvesatwar.net campaign a whirl.
As for the OP - several answers here has nailed it. Just to expand a little, up until late 43 WWII uboats were surface ships with a capability of making short duration dives if the situation warranted it. During the early years, before radar, most attacks were carried out at nighttime on the surfac, as this was by far the most efficient means of using a Uboat. With a top speed of 17-18 knots surfaqced a uboat could keep up with all merchants surfaced, as well as being enable to outrun some escorts. Submerged, however, the top speed was 7 knots, slower than everything else, and this speed was only available for short durations. (Maybe an hour) and the uboat would be VERY noisy and easily detecable, as well as virtually deaf itself…
As for the realism of U-571 - none to be found A German destroyer in the middle of the North Atlantic? A single engine aircraft also? Boggles the mind if they actually claim to have done any research what so ever… Well, the technical aspects of the uboat, maybe…
And for the love of OG, please stop with the double negative hijack already…
ANYWAYS.
How about sacrificial anodes? Those would virtually eliminate corrosion altogether, but I imagine it’d be hard to stock a bunch of zinc bars on board.
The bars could last at least one patrol. Merchant ships go into dry dock at the most every year and most of the zincs are still there.
“I don’t think you didn’t steal the watch.”
What do I think with respect to your theft of the watch?