Yes, it is.

Yes, it is.

Yes, it is.

I still like "Life in Penistone: Not as hard as you’d think" the best.

It looks like the maximum allowed carapace length of lobsters is between 5 and 5.5 inches, depending on the fishing grounds:

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2008/octqtr/50cfr697.20.htm

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.

Remember when Ben & Jerry's used to have a Kahlua-flavored ice cream? Mmmmm...

Do people from outside of Massachusetts "get" the "Southie" joke? I wonder if AskMen.com is a Boston-based site.

The claw meat on massive lobsters like that is like eating a little bit of heaven.

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.

I think Cheney's cane has a sword hidden inside - for hand-to-hand combat in case things got hairy right there behind the podium.

I really like this one from Carrington:

Penistone: actually, yes, we ARE glad to see you.

There are some GREAT ones here!

What are your favorites so far?

Keep 'em coming! No winner yet!

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.

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?

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.