Slashdot Mirror

Recent events suggest the notion is not so far fetched - http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/03 24_050324_trexsofttissue.html

This was covered on slashdot - http://science.slashdot.org/science/05/03/24/20122 56.shtml?tid=14

Here are some better photos:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/06/ph otogalleries/giantcatfish/index.html

Or this one:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/06/06 29_050629_giantcatfish.html

Mekong people believe it's a sacred fish, because it persists on plant matter and 'meditates'"--in the deep, stony pools of the Mekong River--"somewhat like a Buddhist monk, said Zeb Hogan, a fisheries biologist who studies the largest freshwater fish in the world.

There are probably still some leftovers from this one.. :)

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/06/ph otogalleries/giantcatfish/photo4.html

I was researching this just yesterday so I'm not surprised to see it here. That fish is a whole heckuvva lot larger than the catfish I used to catch and eat as a kid.

There are some great photos here at National Geographic's Article on the fish. My favorite photo is the one with an elderly gent cutting a steak larger than his torso. Dang! At that size I wonder if they taste any good?

Of course, Giant Catfish are the stuff of legends, and usually have a kernal of truth. (Links to other whoppers there as well)

Usually tales of the "big one that got away" or, in this case, "Catfish the size of Volkswagon Bugs" are dismissed, but according to Loren Coleman's "Mysterious America" (March 2004 ed. /My affiliate link), Chapter 10, even Mark Twain claims to have seen one more than six feet long and weighing 250 pounds in the Mississippi River. (How he managed to weigh it is not recorded ^_-). But cryptozoologists still try to hunt them down, even this summer as reported here. Chester Moore, the organizer of the event, claims that preservation is their goal as well as discovery. This is the biggest North American expedition to research cryptid catfish I've heard of, so it will be interesting to see if they get lucky. They'll need to discover the fish first, though, before talking about preservation. ::)

Preservation of giant catfish is part of the WWF's mission, too, in Thailand & Cambodia. Just this month four giant catfish bred in captivity were released into the Mekong. So Giant Catfish are real in the Amazon, Europe, Asia, etc., but cryptozoological here in the States. Would be cool if they weren't, though.

This psuedoreport brought to you by Insomnia(TM)

"Thai fisheries officials had hoped to release this adult male Mekong giant catfish after they stripped it of milt for a captive-breeding program. But the whopping fish, which was as big a grizzly bear, didn't survive." http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/06/ph otogalleries/giantcatfish/photo3.html

"Thai fisheries officials had hoped to release this adult male Mekong giant catfish after they stripped it of milt for a captive-breeding program. But the whopping fish, which was as big a grizzly bear, didn't survive." http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/06/ph otogalleries/giantcatfish/photo3.html

If site linked is down, there is story and 4 larger photos at http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/06/ph otogalleries/giantcatfish/index.html

"Thai fisheries officials had hoped to release this adult male Mekong giant catfish after they stripped it of milt for a captive-breeding program. But the whopping fish, which was as big a grizzly bear, didn't survive." http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/06/ph otogalleries/giantcatfish/photo3.html

These URLs (from the previous posts) show that in some places you really CAN say, "We've got BIGGER fish to fry..." (DOH!)

http://ftp2.nationalgeographic.com/pressroom/GIANT CATFISH/GiantCatfish.jpg

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/05 15_030515_giantcatfish.html

At first, I wondered what sized fishing craft they have to use to haul/reel in that fish. I wondered if they used a 50-foot boat or a supertanker. But any of those three probably would inundate a typical river.

These URLs (from the previous posts) show that in some places you really CAN say, "We've got BIGGER fish to fry..." (DOH!)

http://ftp2.nationalgeographic.com/pressroom/GIANT CATFISH/GiantCatfish.jpg

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/05 15_030515_giantcatfish.html

At first, I wondered what sized fishing craft they have to use to haul/reel in that fish. I wondered if they used a 50-foot boat or a supertanker. But any of those three probably would inundate a typical river.

Thought you all would enjoy this. Full resolution AP photo of the catfish. http://ftp2.nationalgeographic.com/pressroom/GIANT %20CATFISH/GiantCatfish.jpg

Here is an article on these fish. Sadly they sound like they are on the way out -- humans have disrupted their environment to the point that the populations are isolated and can't move around freely enough.

Here is a photo of a giant stingray from the same area.

Here is an article on these fish. Sadly they sound like they are on the way out -- humans have disrupted their environment to the point that the populations are isolated and can't move around freely enough.

Here is a photo of a giant stingray from the same area.

One down, not many left to go:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/05 15_030515_giantcatfish.html

Still who cares about extinction, if you can get a nice photo out of it?

Engadget has just posted this article. Very creepy realistic android.

You're a geek, take an anthropology lesson from society.

Women are looking for providers. They can't help it. It makes sense. Who gets stuck with the baby for 15 years as it grows up? Not the bloke, he can wander off and father a dozen (a thousand?) more. It's just the same way you can't help looking for physically attractive females.

Why are men fascinated by money, cars, houses etc? Status items, evidence of their ability to provide. Why do women spend sooo much time on their appearance?

You want to be sexy to women? Look around you. Start looking and acting like someone who can provide.

Wha?? what about ice core samples and data taken from other sources like trees? Judgement is being made on much more than a hundred years of data. The fact is that ice that is tens of thousands of years old is currently melting. It hasn't been this hot for tens of thousands of years.

If it has to kill us to do so then so be it.

If you want to die, fine!
I am just pissed about you killing me at the same time. It is amazing that there are people who still believe nothing is wrong.
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0409/featu re1/

What about this Scientists found remainds of soft tissue(namely bone marrow) inside the thigh bone of a T-Rex. The possibility of extracting DNA from it is indeed very high. Just my 2 and 1/2 cents

I don't claim any expertise here.

I did get a BS in ocean engineering, but never practiced and it was a long time ago.

Here are a few links though:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=hawaii+ocean+ cooling+deep+&btnG=Google+Search

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/09/09 10_040910_deeplake.html

http://www.aloha.com/~craven/coolair.html

http://www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/ert/otec_hi.html

and finally:

http://science.slashdot.org/articles/03/03/24/2351 234.shtml?tid=134

all the best,

drew

The idea has been around a long time but then so has John Craven. Toronto is using the waters of Lake Ontario to provide air conditioning for a big slice of downtown realestate. The big problem with the Great Lakes is the needs of the urban sprawl that circles the Lakes' shores is putting stress on the resource, not to mention the political fray ensuing from many plans to alter the in/out flow of the watershed feeding the lakes. Being Canadian and watching the growing need for water in the US just makes me feel like we're gonna be on top of the quality of life index for a long time to come.

Note that this adds credance to the claim that men are useless (biologically speaking). Why Is Sex Fun? by Jared Diamond touches on this a bit.

And then on Bizarro Earth Americans invent the technology to turn trash into crude oil.

Wait, you mean necessity breeds invention? Good Lord, what an idea. I thought that technology always stayed static until the sky fell.

Man, what next? Capitalism generally ends up taking care of problems? Nah, that couldn't be. I'm sure socialist countries that "care" about the environment had these problems solved a long time ago.

Yes, you can.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/11/11 24_031124_flyingsharks.html

The 2 girls is an interesting case, however it has nothing to do with section 805 or anything in the patriot act.
you have 2 illegal aliens, one of whom while being investigated by immigration is discovered to have written a paper about the glories of suicide and Islam. The immigration person who found that put it together with all the common news and thought "suicide bomber" and called the FBI. The FBI after reading the papers decided that there was enough threat that they should be arrested and they were then held because of there illegal alien status. Further checking them out freed them.
Would be interesting to see the papers but with them being minors the chance of any of this being freed from the gag rule is close to none.

> This was all described in a show about aviation disasters on the Discovery Channel. Maybe somebody else can provide more details.

It's actually interesting that this came up. I literally just watched that particular show today, not five hours ago. The show is on the National Geographic Channel, and is titled "Air Emergency". It's an hour-long series of various air disasters.

The one about the broken propeller and the shredded engine is specifically titled "One Wing Flight", which as I said was the one I just watched. You pretty much have the details right: the shredded engine created extreme drag and had the plane wanting to whip to the left and roll over. The pilot and co-pilot did manage to crash the plane on its belly in a field, where it was subsequently ripped in half during the crash.

All passengers survived the crash and, more amazingly, only a few were even seriously injured. As you stated, the jet fuel which ignited due to sparks from the plane's electrical system was what caused major injury and death. Of the 29 people on board, 10 died as a result of the fire (including the pilot himself, who suffered a head injury and never woke up), and 13 more suffered severe burns. Some as much as 92% burn injury.

Only six people got away with minor injuries, and they were all the ones that got out of the plane before the fire began.

Funny you should bring that up, here are a couple of articles that are very interesting on the subject...

Univ of Arkansas
National Geographic

Ahem

Here is the definite web repository on Evolution. Feel free to look around and refute any of the evidence for evolution they present.

Here's another.

And another.

Not quack pages. Real, serious pages.

Oh, and thousands of Christian clergy also support the truth of evolution.

Now, nobody can take YOU seriously when all you do is claim there is no evidence for evolution (which there is, see above for but a small sampling), talk about the multitudes of evidence for ID, yet fail to show any such evidence?

So let me ask:

What is the process of speciation that ID endorses?
What observed or experimental evidence is there for this?
Where is the evidence for this from other fields, such as physics, chemistry or archeology\anthropology?

Let me know when you can present this.

I am more than willing to change my view of ID if the evidence is presented and can be verified and can hold up to scrutiny. Are you willing to do the same in regard to evolution? Are you prepared to admit that evolution is correct if the evidence is shown? Even if that means the Bible is wrong or it opens the possiblility that God doesn't exist or isn't needed?

JohnFluxx writes that "It's very funny to think that the neo conservatives go to war over oil - the compressed remains of million year old creatures".

That's assuming the standard interpretation of oil production/chronology is correct. Creationists tend to believe that the oil reserves are the remains of billions of dead things that were rapidly buried in the Flood of Noah only about 4K years ago, and being under intense heat and pressure since then have turned into oil.

That viewpoint is given some weight (though not proved) by the conversion of pig manure into crude oil in a 20-minute process. This article (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0 701_040702_pigoil.html) indicates that the process has been known for decades, but with lower crude oil prices wasn't economical to develop. Now that crude oil is around $50/barrel, they're looking it into again.

The point is, it doesn't require millions of years to form oil; it just takes the right conditions. Whether the standard interpretation of millions of years or the Flood interpretation is the correct one will be left to the reader to decide. But at any rate, the "neo conservatives" are not being internally inconsistent, which is implied by your post; they're only inconsistent if they accept the standard interpretation of oil formation.

The Genographic Project

...that of the thousand or so people killed by starvation and disease every hour, day and night, the vast majority were put in this position by regimes which follow the same religion as you do.

You almost certainly do not think of it as or call it a religion and would probably argue that neither Materialism nor Naturalism were religious positions, because of this bizarre idea that a certain amount of stained glass or chanting has to be involved for it to qualify as a religion - or at least a priest (think Richard Dawkins) - but that doesn't stop the underlying philosophy from being, hah, fundamentally religious.

The end result of all such pogroms has so far been death and destruction, the bankrupting and degrading of the societies involved - yes, including the nominal winners.

Deism per se isn't the problem; even the relatively bad deists (think Inquisition or ritual sacrifices atop Mayan step-pyramids) can't hold a candle to the twin evils of "might makes right" (AKA "survival of the fittest") and "the end justifies the means". The means are the end.

Back on topic, despite massive technical and financial shortfalls in many disciplines, the Russians have kept within hailing distance of the USA in the space race by accepting greater risk levels; imagine what would happen if the West also had the courage to do a few things without insurance in quadruplicate. I'm not talking about the kind of administrative insanity which led to Chernobyl, but the willingness to potentially add 0.0001% to the world's death toll in order to flood the place with the kind of cheap energy and materials which would end starvation and disease within a decade (and, en passant, the population explosion: the way to stop people from overbreeding is to make them rich).

If I was going to space, I'd rather not die trying, but I'd rather die than not try. The resources to eliminate much pollution, clearfelling and other general crapping-in-our-own-nest are within reach and the only reason we aren't already tapped into them is our immediate fear and greed short-circuiting any serious long-term investment.

for samples of microorganisms from Lake Vostok

First you point out that the Y chromosome does not follow Mendelian genetics, then that neither does mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), but you conclude that one should use male samples. Why?

Because cell samples from male participants contain Y chromosomes as well as mitochondrial DNA (the latter which they inherited from their mothers). The point being, male participants provide more of the genetic material used in these tests than females do. Actually, for each male participant, the testing of one woman (his biological mother) becomes redundant.

Still, I think there are other factors in favor of having both males and females participate:

• The more people you get involved, the more representative a sample (of the entire population) you will get. Ten men and ten women will be more representative than just ten men. Limiting the project to men only will not automatically double the number of men available for participation.
• While both tests themselves cost money to perform, the $100 paid for each test kit appearantly covers more than just the testing procedure, such as partial funding for the research done. A married couple may be more inclined to spend $200 on having both of them tested, than just one of them, even if the woman will learn nothing about her father's ancestry in this way.
• This is not only about research, but also about public education and involvement. Excluding half of humanity from this effort ("you may read the results of your husband's or your brother's important contribution to science in five years") wouldn't exactly be good PR for either IBM or the National Geographic Society...

According to the Genographic project FAQ, male samples will be subject to the Y-DNA test only, which looks like a wasted opportunity to me. However, it could be that male participants will be suggested to upgrade their tests with Family Tree DNA if they want the mtDNA test too. I have sent mail to National Geographic asking them to clarify that particular answer.

There is an interesting project being run using the same techniques to determine the extent of the Phoenicians' expansion across the Mediterannean.
National Geographic had a feature about it alst year.
Interesting reading.

Genographic project site, rather than BBC reporting of it. Like I put in my submission of this story, earlier than this one. Winge moan. And this one should have an IBM tag.

How to Participate

Genographic project site, rather than BBC reporting of it. Like I put in my submission of this story, earlier than this one. Winge moan. And this one should have an IBM tag.

How to Participate

Something like 6% of males in China share a common Y chromosome that dates back about 600-700 years. The reasoning is Genghis Khan and the customs of the times. [I think something like this existed in West Asian cultures, too, that kings had some right to bed any woman of the realm.]

Perhaps Wilt Chamberlain's much rumoured progeny will be similarly noticed a century from now.

Now I know his name. Spencer Wells, Journey of Man, thanks to a poster above.

The African exodus I think is pretty well understood. Although, there seems to have been multiple exodi (?) of hominid species that did not survive in the long term (such as the Neanderthal in Europe).

From what I understand, the story gets harder to piece together in the last part of the European migrations from Central Asia.

A couple of interesting TV shows on this were The Real Eve (which does the mitochondrial trace through maternal ancestral lines), and Journey of Man, which relates to the more difficult task of tracing mutations in the Y chromosome handed done through paternal lines.

One of the earlier pioneers in the field, Brian Sykes of Oxford, started up a side business where you can send swabs to obtain information about maternal and paternal markers in your genetic makeup (IIRC, about US$225).

A few years ago I got the analysis done and sent the results back to Ma 'n Pa for Mother's Day and Father's Day gifts.

And was the Matrix oracle inhaling fumes from the gas range like the oracle of Delphi was? (Blatantly stolen from another poster).

That's actually somewhat amusing, now that it's pretty clear that whatever priestess was on duty there at any given time was probably stoned out of her mind on hallucinogenic gases rising out of rock fissures.

The DMZ is a wildlife paradise --- hopefully the wildlife is not extinguished by armedbots because the wildlife merely moves throughout the DMZ. I would like to see the armedbots recognize the difference between human and animal before going robocop.

Point Roberts, WA

According to this article, it is possible to pick up brain activity from EEG's and similar scans. You can use that information to control a cursor on a CRT. Thus, there is visual feedback, which is probably good enough to gain control. Bio-feedback games connected to USB ports are old news too.

Think about how awkward it felt to drive a car at first. Brain-computer interfaces are probably not as difficult to create as they seem, and are probably no more than a decade away. Here here!

Injecting signals into the brain amounts to controlling it, though. If those signals come from a body part with which the brain is already familiar, great. If not, the brain can learn to process the "foreign" signals as best it can.

Certain situations already cause similar behavior. When a person becomes blind, the part of the brain devoted to visual processing starts taking input from other parts (especially the hands, since they are absolutely loaded with touch receptors). The situation is not identitical to getting feedback from prosthetic limbs, but it does show that parts of the brain can take unfamiliar inputs and figure out what to do with them.

We could just be debating the semantics of the word "control" here. I imagine many people see it as forcing the brain to take a particular action. Although this is probably possible, it also probably isn't desirable. For instance, it would be monumentally difficult to inject a probe into a person's brain and trigger it to get them to raise their hand. This is because it takes a massive amount of motor coordination to get the hand to raise smoothly and subsequently remain in the air, and the probe would produce an unnatural, Frankenstein-like motion.

Instead of trying to force the arm up, it's easier just to ask someone to raise their arm. You are controlling their brain by activating their auditory processing cortex, which leads to them interpreting and understanding your request, then firing off systems in the motor cortex that get routed through the cerebellum to lift their arm and hold it there. More effective than a probe, and easier, too! :)

We do have RoboRats. Note that the rats are not "forced" in a certain direction, but actually trained to respond to mild electrical stimulus to the "whisker processing" center of their brains that is enforced by stimulating their pleasure centers. Even remotely controlling a rat, it's far easier to provide minimal feedback and let the brain do the bulk of the processing.

Its already here:
Remote Controlled Cockroaches
http://www.wireheading.com/roboroach/
Remote Controlled Rats
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/05/05 01_020501_roborats.html

"Physorg is running a story about OmniTread: a serpentine robot designed to traverse extremely difficult terrain, such as the rubble of a collapsed building."

I thought Remote control mice were taking that job.

National Geographic had an article in November 2004 discussing many of the good points you have raised.
Was Darwin Wrong?
Short answer: No.
Choice quote:
That's what scientists mean when they talk about a theory: not a dreamy and unreliable speculation, but an explanatory statement that fits the evidence.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/12 07_041207_brain_interface.html http://www.wireheading.com/misc/implant.html Combine the two interfaces and we don't need keyboards anymore!! That would be something worth researching!