Adam Stanhope's Comments

My father has been a lifelong collector of many cool things - not including cars. He has a 300 year old barn stuffed to the gills with things. Growing up with him and joining him on his hunts for cool things, I've seen many abandoned (or nearly so) barns, houses, warehouses, etc. filled with treasure around the world. As other commenters here have pointed out, these things do exist and most such incredible things do eventually emerge to see the light of day.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
I would be very, very surprised if the store wasn't fully compensated for this mess.

Gaillard is on French TV sometimes. If this video was done in conjunction with television then I'm certain the store would have had to be compensated.

Including a scene wherein Gaillard's accountant hands the store a check for damages would have made the video far less funny.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
It's neat that this story has come to life again. It is indeed a year or so old and made the rounds once before. I have seen it posted as new again no less than a dozen times in the past 24 hours. This is proof that it is an excellent story.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
They used to throw the big ones back, too. I'm not sure how/why/when the rules changed about throwing the biggest lobsters back, but it's only been in the past 15 years or so that massive lobsters like this one have been available to purchase.

One way of maintaining the lobster fishery involves rules that lobsters UNDER a certain size must be thrown back into the ocean. Also, if a lobster is caught bearing eggs OUTSIDE ("glued" to the bottom-side of its tail), the back of the tail is notched with a V using a hand-tool, and the lobster is thrown back. The V marks that lobster as a fertile, mating, egg-bearing animal. Any time a lobster with a v-notch is caught the lobsterman (or lobsterwoman!) is obligated to return it to the deep.

As for throwing back all lobsters ABOVE a certain size... It was certainly a practice at least into the 1980s. It may have been voluntary - I'm not certain.

Maybe Luigi the Quahog guy knows.

I'm in coastal Massachusetts and my next-door neighbor is a part-time lobsterman.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
I love this sudden concern on the part of our conservative commentators re: the cost of the inauguration.

These are the folks who stood by cheering over the past eight years while a record surplus was magically transformed into a record deficit.

This transformation only happened as a result of 9/11, which was Bill Clinton's fault. Furthermore, had the Bush Administration not created a $10 trillion deficit over the past eight years, Saddam Hussein would have deployed one of the nuclear weapons from his vast arsenal against a major American city - probably New York.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Unfortunately, back in the 1980s when New Zealand's coal mines were closing and unemployment was hovering around 12%, the NZ government decided to make up for lost tax revenue by requiring visitors to the park to purchase hiking permits. As this low period in NZ's economy coincided with the Japanese economic boom of the 1980s, the permit fees were set with wealthy Japanese tourists in mind.

A one week permit for a single foreign hiker currently costs NZ$10,000,000 - about USD$15,000. A day-hiking permit can be purchased on the black market for about USD$500 in Christchurch.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Does anyone have any idea how the nuclear power for a lighthouse would work?

Usually nuclear power involves using controlled nuclear fission to heat water into steam which in turn turns turbines to generate electricity. The nuclear reaction heating water into steam does exactly the same thing that burning coal or oil does.

This is clearly not how an unattended nuclear power lighthouse would work.

Can anyone describe how it might work?
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
The climate change argument is a tough one.

Yes, I do believe that climate change is occurring and that much of it can be linked to human activity.

For the record, however, it is the International Herald Tribune that stated that the failure of Holland's canals to freeze in recent years was due to climate change - not me. That being said, I certainly think that it is possible for "global warming" to be responsible.

As for the larger argument, I am suspicious of the movement afoot to discredit the concept of global warming because it is so closely tied in to the petroleum and energy industries. Big Energy is so very clearly interested in convincing the world that global warming is a myth. Why is this? Furthermore, why do some efforts by industry to discredit climate change happen clandestinely - through energy-funded think tanks with names like "The We Like Nature and Puppies and Groovy Clean Air Foundation"?

I smell petrodollars at work.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)


Page 1 of 22       next | last

Profile for Adam Stanhope

  • Member Since 2012/08/04


Statistics

Comments

  • Threads Started 657
  • Replies Posted 0
  • Likes Received 5
  • Abuse Flags 0