"In the summer of 1935, C.J. "Johnny" Baker and H. Muir staked the original 21 "Giant" claims for Bear Exploration Company. The claims were on Great Slave Lake's Back Bay and along what is now the historic Ingraham Trail.

By 1937, Yellowknife Gold Mines Ltd. acquired Burwash's assets. From these, the subsidiary Giant Yellowknife Gold Mines Ltd was created. The company fell on hard times and by 1940, operations eventually came to a standstill. Frobisher Explorations took over the site in 1943. However, the advent of World War II halted the operation once again. Gold was not a priority in times of war, and there was a shortage of men to work the site.

Soon after the war ended, Giant Mine officially opened, and production moved into full swing. The first gold brick was poured on June 3, 1948.

From May to December 1948, the mine produced 8,152 ounces of gold from 49,985 tonnes of ore. With the nearby Con Mine also operating, Yellowknife was experiencing the rapid growth associated with a booming mining industry.

Those original claims would lead to the production of seven million ounces of gold and one of the longest continuous gold mining operations in Canadian mining history; however, they also led to a legacy of contamination."

http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100027388/1100100027390

Forgot his mallet and wooden stake, fucking amateur.

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.

@ChaosEngine @Buck

My dad was in the Air Force. He was chosen for a particular program -- to be a Range Safety Officer on launches.

Once he got his Masters in Engineering at MIT on the government's dime, he was stationed at Cape Canaveral.

His job was to have his hand on the key that would blow up a missile when it went off course. The course was set so that if it went bad, the pieces would fall safely into the ocean. If it started to veer off course, you had to blow it up quick.

He was stationed at Cape Canaveral from something like 1958 to 1966. About that time frame. Early days, when they didn't know quite how to do a successful launch -- and he blew up a lot.

More than any other person -- and no one will catch up with his record, because it is no longer early days.

He got a Saturn. He blew up a Titan. He blew up a lot of Missilemen missiles.

He mostly worked on the unmanned launches. Only one launch (that I know of) was manned -- and he almost had to blow it up. He was sweating that one -- because of the stakes of blowing early or blowing late and no good result if you make the wrong choice. There was a wobble ... and he waited ... and it corrected.

But yeah. A Saturn.

After Cape Canaveral, he was stationed at Vandenberg Air Force Base, NW of Santa Barbara. The west coast equivalent of the Cape.

PM me your email, and I'll send you a SERIOUSLY cool cartoon that was a gift when he left the Cape. Sitting astride a rocket that has obviously been launched from Florida, with silhouettes of all the missiles he blew up -- with HASHMARKS for how many of each.

It is seriously cool.

Same ratio or worse in Syria with insanely more powerful weapons available to citizens and a far lower grade military...actually far more tilted against the military....the military that has won. (Against multiple enemies both foreign and domestic)
Yes, bombs damage assets, but not territory, which is what's really at stake. Buildings only have value if they're in your territory, so if they aren't, it's beneficial to destroy them.
No civil population has successfully denied an armed military what they need to function since the Nazis failed in Russia that I know of. It's really not as simple as it sounds, the only effective way to deny them your resources is to destroy them.

In the Arab spring, I think the government was overthrown because military leaders decided to stand with the people in short order. It could have been quite different, in places it was. This is a better, more recent example of your point, imo.

Careful, if @bobknight33 sees you saying that he'll respond with some pretty harsh criticism. I'll pull quotes from his profile to simulate what he would say.

"Cuba citizens live as long and pay less? That Communism is better? That Cubans live shit life's but have live as long? Sign me up for that stuff... Then I 'll build a boat out of trash bans and float 90miles to tot the USA for a worse life. Sign me up for that stuff.

Every group that a has money at stake are trying to influence the people / governments one way or another in their favor.

All those hard line [prices] are only starting negotiating positions.

Trump is punking the shit out of liberals. Too funny. No real evidence or facts. just "sources" for liberal media false hype to continue its 24/7 anti Trump narrative."

Every group that a has money at stake are trying to influence the people / governments one way or another in their favor.

I do believe that temperatures are changing but to say man is mostly at fault -- I don't buy it. Even those promoting man made warming concede that even the Paris accord will not truly change the doomsday course we are on.

Al Gore's Inconvenient truth movie has the planet basically dead today -- but we are all here. Kind of the boy crying woof.

Well, I suppose he kinda explains it in the video, the US has, post ww2 been the guiding star of the west, being both separated in a unique way, and a steadfast ally, and the, by far, most powerful nation, they could afford and permit themselves to stake out the course and push a little harder than other nations. if , say france or belgium or whatever were to "take the lead" on an issue like north korea, the response would be "You and what army?"

I agree 100% with this video, the west has simply lost its leader.

Yeah, I didn't really agree with that part of the video.

Felt like a false equivalency to me. There really is an "us" and "them". This isn't some "two sides to every story" kind of thing. The WBC are simply wrong. Their position is objectively awful, and I feel no need whatsoever to try to understand their point of view other than to utterly debunk it.

I'm not saying that they should be burned at the stake or anything. Her experience shows that compassion and reasoned argument are better tools.

See also racists, creationists, homeopaths and climate deniers.

The crazy thing is i think the Russians got the man they really wanted in Tillerson.

Exon and Russia have untold billions of dollars tied up in sanctions.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/12/world/europe/rex-tillersons-company-exxon-has-billions-at-stake-over-russia-sanctions.html?_r=0

I give it a year, TOPS, before their greed 'trumps' any concerns over perceived impropriety .

I had never heard it claimed that cigars pose less/different cancer risks than cigarettes.

Google search provides mixed (as you might expect) results.

Cancer.gov, the Mayo Clinic, and WebMD all seem to suggest that cigar smokers in general tend to have lower rates of lung cancer than cigarette smokers (because they generally don't inhale, which I didn't know), but higher than non-smokers. And they have comparable or possibly higher rates of other cancers (oral, esophageal ... pancreatic) as compared to cigarette smokers.

Several results suggest that there is less data about cigars, results aren't statistically significant, etc. etc. and that they believe that cigars are much safer than cigarettes, if not entirely safe. But frankly, the pages I see (in a cursory search that I don't really have a personal stake in) promoting that view don't seem as ... trustworthy to me as the Mayo Clinic, or Healthcare Triage videos like this one (that list references right in the video).


No holier-than-thou attitude intended. ...Although I can say that I'm personally very glad I never acquired a taste for tobacco products of any kind. And a very low interest in alcohol consumption -- I go months on up to a year+ between drinks of booze without ever missing it. I sometimes avoid social situations because of smoke, which I suppose is a downside. But on the other hand, I'm enough of an introvert that avoiding social situations is probably something I'd be doing anyway... So at the very least I have more money to waste on other things since I'm not a smoker or much of a drinker.

They aren't wrapped in wood, but if this is uncoated pipe, some will lightly tack weld a ridge or piece of scrap barstock to the OD of the pipe to keep it from rolling when building the stack; they aren't there to prevent this type of major rolling action. At around 1:33 you can see one of these going over the edge. Just guessing, but these look to be in the 20" to 30" diameter range with plenty of length, so they're just really small ships with the ends cut off and will float for a bit until well flooded - lots of surface area there for some buoyancy, and I've seen 40 foot joints of 20" diameter casing float near the surface for 30 seconds or so when a bubble gets trapped temporarily inside before burping out and sinking to the bottom. At around 2:15 you can see the big reddish block with the vertical groove right on the corner of the load platform about 1/4 of the way up the frame. That's where normal humans stab the stake or pipe to help contain the load (so, the vertical pipe or solid stake goes in the hole, the load is built, and no rolling can occur - momentum is the killer here, so if you keep things from rolling, life is good. This was an excellent example of how not to load pipe on a barge / ship.

Yeah, I don't think they get it. This isn't something you fix in four or eight years. There will be way too much damage from a Trump Presidency to fix.

"Oh, so he's going to replace a conservative judge with another conservative judge", but that assumes there will only be the one vacancy during his term... there is a high likelihood that some of the liberal justices will quit soon... or die...

He will push executive powers to a new level.

He will destroy our relationship with our allies in Europe, and put them in more danger as he removes the US from NATO support in order to boost his friends in the Kremlin.

His actions against ISIS is exactly what ISIS wants to happen, because it makes lone wolf attacks far more likely. He'll be putting American lives, in our borders in far more danger.

There is way too much at stake to allow Trump to win.

It is far easier to build Bernie's movement with Hillary in office than with Trump. If nothing else, that is the fact they should be taking away.

But maybe the stakes aren't as high for everyone else. The kind of people who would benefit most from Bernie might see the only solution is to vote in protest, maybe hope to push things to the point where fundamental change is the only option.

Equally, those guys might say you are crazy for voting for compromise election after election until things are so bad and homogenised between the parties that you may as well not have voted. In fact, I strongly believe that's what led to the rise of people like Sanders and Trump in the first instance - the complete failure of politicians to fairly represent the views of the people in the country.

I mean, depending on your position on the socioeconomic ladder, it's either hugely important to keep Trump out or just another meaningless exchange of faces. And then you find out that there's an inward corruption, the establishment machine shifts and rules you out again.

You don't have to convince me btw, I'm just saying those people do exist and if you take a close look you can kind of see their point. If someone proves themselves to be untrustworthy, you're on shaky ground by saying that they're the devil you know. If you don't know the devil you know, what are they?

For me, in my country, my patience for compromise is gone. Where would you draw the line in the sand on compromise and manipulation? The next candidate? Or the one after that? Isn't it always really important? Do we compromise forever and let global warming, nuclear war or terrorists from countries we destabilised wipe us out?