Obama talked there about holding UNACCOMPANIED children, not separating families except in a very few instances with cause, certainly not as a bargaining chip in a political fight.
Odd, they think indefinite incarceration is better than the infinitesimal chance they might release a child to an abusive family member....why doesn't that also go for kids in CPS who are being relocated then? We don't care about American children being abused?

They pretend this is an Obama policy (but slip up and admit it's 6 weeks old) and pretend this is only about illegals who've been caught (but it's being done to families requesting asylum legally too, despite Trump's claim) they specifically claim it isn't being done to legal asylum applicants (hoping you won't notice that only goes for those few entering legally at an international port but not those who surrender legally at border crossings).
The policy is a pure white house creation, one they disingenuously shirk all responsibility for. It's an obvious political ploy to blackmail Democrats into agreeing to Draconian Republican immigration reform to stop this outrageous abuse of refugees.
Wow, @bobknight33, pretty awful even from your team of deplorables.

Also full of outright *lies

Edit: To prove himself a liar, Trump has just ended this policy in the same way he created it, by executive order. No word on what happens to those already separated yet, but the practice of unilateral separation should end.

Best description I've heard for a Bowlan knot was from a captain of a scallop boat out of Port Canaveral. He said "...it won't come loose and you can get it loose."

"Inexcusable" is how the port authority described this.
She's a disappointment.
She apparently resigned before they could remove her....the only smart move she made here.
Bye Felicia.

I would love to see the report she filed, it's clear she didn't consider it might be on camera.

This looks like a game of high-stakes chicken. There are a set of international collision regulations (COLREGS) that every cadet all over the world has to learn by heart to gain a certificate of competency.

Sometimes these rules are inaccurately reduced to "right of way" rules. In fact, the rules oblige actions on all ships in a potential collision situation: one will be the "stand-on vessel", and the other will be the "give-way vessel": obliged to make an early and obvious maneuver to avoid the collision, in a prescribed direction (generally turn to starboard). The ships involved can instead get on the radio and negotiate a different plan, but absent that, these are the rules.

One rule governs overtaking, where the vessel being overtaken is the "stand-on vessel" and the vessel overtaking is the "give-way vessel". Another governs crossing, where in a crossing path situation the vessel which has the other ship to port (on the left, looking forward) is the "stand-on vessel" and the other is the "give-way vessel".

So in the situation we see in the video, the ship in which we are standing is clearly to port of the other vessel and so would be the "give-way" vessel. It should have made a slight starboard turn much much much earlier to pass behind the other vessel.

Except what if the other vessel overtook this ship and passed in front? This happens sometimes, where a vessel in a hurry and in the "give-way" position decides to make an early change to put it in the "stand-on" position and force the other ship to move. This is what's known internationally as a "dick move" and probably criminal.

Unless we have the full radar track for both ships we can't know who was at fault. Since they thankfully didn't collide, the MAIB won't have to figure this out and send anyone to jail.

So, the comedy of errors grows.
The story had been that this was a mistake by a single technician that required the governor to sign into Facebook to correct, and he didn't know his password. What ridiculous emergency system is ported through Facebook? WTF?!?
Today, the new story is a night supervisor decided to test the day crew, and sent a prepared missile warning test recording to them that included the words "this is not a test", which, naturally, the tech took as a real warning. Once the mistake was realized, they also realized no one had ever considered what to do if a false alert went out, and they had no plan at all, so they asked the governor to make a public announcement on Facebook.
What a terrible system. The designers and supervisors should all be fired for allowing such a system to exist.

That port-a-potty did not look both ways before crossing!

What, no Scott Walker and "In The Port of Amsterdam"?

(not really work safe):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uF_eVJ7WYaY

Your video, Port of Amsterdam - Timelapse SAIL 2015, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I actually agree with you mostly, but you're not gonna like it.

One thing I will point out though - "I just don't connect gun regulations as an effective solution to mass murder."

We have data on this. Take Australia. In the 21 years leading up to Port Arthur and that massacre itself, which triggered the nation into heavily regulating guns, there were 16 mass murders of four or more people, totaling 137 murders. Since then, there have been 12, with a total of 76 murders. This despite there being population growth.

Violent crime rate has dropped from 1996 to now, mainly from reductions in robbery and a small drop in homicide rates.

There is very clear evidence that if most guns are removed from circulation, there are very real and likely benefits when it comes to reducing violent crime in general and murder.

I'm a political moderate and pragmatic. I go with what works. Don't care how liberal or conservative the solution is. I'm never in favor of regulation that is ineffective at solving problems.

And to that end, I'm against most gun control measures. I'm on board with banning assault weapons, fully automatic weapons, armor piercing bullets, but most gun control things like psychiatric evaluations, universal background checks? No.
Why? Because societal models we know that provided real progress on problems seemed to suggest one thing - it's the prevalence of guns that is the problem. If you make it marginally harder to buy guns by things like...

Three day waiting periods
Universal background checks
Psychiatric evaluations

They don't work. Banning guns works, though. It's worked time and time again. Australia, Britain, over and over and over, if guns lose prevalence, violence, murder, etc. decrease significantly.

At some point, society has to decide that giving up guns is worth it. But until that time, "common sense" gun control is a waste of time, and I quite frankly think it might do real effective gun control measures harm because when nothing gets better from these mild measures, they're going to point that out.

I never knew there was a mini arcade of it. Nice! I liked the console and arcade ports.

Misleading title, otherwise it would be a good post. The slave trade of the 1700's would never have grown into what if became if there were not buyers.

@newtboy, you are correct. Slavery indeed long predates the trade of Africans across oceans. Though, it probably didn't start in Mesopotamia because it was probably happening a little bit everywhere there were tribes that were aggressive with each other.

When slavery is thought of in a modern sense, we tend to think of the slave trade during the early stages of the industrial revolution.

And indeed, members of different tribes were more or less kidnapped and brought to the coast by coastal tribes, where they were sold to ships, which usually originated in Europe or N. America.

One of the busiest ports for the slave trade was Dakar, Senegal. The kingdom there would collect people, to take to Goree Island where they would be later loaded onto ships.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gor%C3%A9e

Ugg. I was on a rock and roll cruise when the engine room caught fire. We were adrift for about a day and a half before they got one engine to work [no stabilizers] so we could inch our way to the nearest [unscheduled] port for repairs. That's when I fell in love with Key West! Good Times

They're using port injection, so without the engine turning there's nothing to pull the fuel into the cylinder.

I love all this technology though, I'm a real petrol head but I really do think this is the dying throws of the internal combustion engine. Electric motors just have so many advantages and the disadvantages are disappearing fast.