Slashdot Mirror

On what basis, then, is it thought that mammoths were animals that could tolerate extremely cold climates? The usual evidence proposed for this supposition were fully outlined and answered by Hans Kraus in his privately published book, "The Mammoth in Ice and Snow".

"Kraus shows that none of the eight characteristics of the mammoth that have been cited as evidence for adaptation to cold is either a valid or reliable index. The characteristics include small ears, long curved tusks, short legs, long hair and thick skin, short tail, anal flap, fat hump, and thick layer of fat beneath the skin.

"For example, the short ears, short legs and short tail are unreliable indicators because they do not vary consistently with latitude in comparison among rabbits and foxes. That is, a rabbit in a cold climate can have a larger ear than one in a warmer climate, when the opposite would be expected. (Kraus, pp. 16b-25.) The curved tusks which allegedly were used to clear snow during winter foraging, show abrasion comparable to tusks of present-day elephants which do not engage in shoveling activity. (Kraus, pp. 26-33.) No living arctic mammal relies on subcutaneous fat for insulation. Land animals tested in the middle of winter possessed no thermally significant layer of fat beneath the skin. (P.F. Scholander, et al, "Body Insulation of Some Arctic and Tropical Mammals and Birds," Biological Bulletin, Vol. 99 (1950), pp. 232-233, 266 cited in Kraus, pp. 92-94). Unlike the mammoth, no hoofed grazing animals in the arctic today have shaggy leg hair which would interfere with movement through snow. Contemporary grazing arctic animals with short leg hair are able to minimize heat loss by lowering the temperature of their legs by controlling both the flow and temperature of blood in them. (Kraus, pp. 53-60)

"As [one of] the largest living, grazing arctic land animals -- and in contrast to the mammoth -- the caribou possesses both hair erector muscles and sebaceous glands. (Kraus, p. 52) The mammoth's alleged adaptation to cold is a misconceived conclusion, unsupported by the facts." (quote from C Leroy, "Replies," KRONOS, Vol. VII, No. 4, (Summer 1982), pp. 73-74.)

There are many modern examples of mammals that are fairly large and have no problem living on the tundra. Muskoxen have "shaggy" coats and don't seem have trouble with snow. I would say that a pretty shaggy coat is a good thing when it is -80F. Caribou also do very well feeding on the tundra. Neither of the things you listed would prevent a mammoth sized creature from living on the tundra.

That's funny, because I don't remember that at all. Truman brought the war to the end, but FDR, Churchill and Stalin get credit for winning the war.

Then I'd guess you're not an American. Truman dropped the bomb and gained credit for the quick end to hostilities and ending the war (as well as the eternal blame for using atomic weapons). As a post-war baby, I grew up with it. Churchill was considered a useful (if needy) ally, while Stalin was already viewed with contempt as an opportunistic, land-grabbing dictator.

The amount of money spent on the military by Gorbechev was less than his predessors, and the simple existance of more successful societies put a lot of stress on the system.

There may be some truth in that, since the military was unhappy because they were getting whacked in Afghanistan. The question then becomes whether it was the constant pressure from the U.S. that caused the problems. While searching for some support for your claim, I came across this , which somewhat agrees in the second paragraph. However, the first paragraph points to the cause. Cause and effect.

You might find people shouting Save the Prairies though. Also tree plantations, while better than clearfelling, are pretty sterile and support much less wildlife than a natural forest.

If red is what we expect and if red is not, what it would look like, if I (or anybody else for that matter) were up there, could anybody please provide us with an idea of what we would see?
Are those dirty-looking pictures that google finds of the "mars-surface" more correct? Or have they been manipulated as well, because "we expect dirt-color"?

I don't think there is much point in arguing about it. Some GIMPing should do the trick, right?

A message from the Seals Environmental Anti-Lungfish Society (SEALS): "We stand in solidarity with our fellow sea creatures on the opposite hemisphere in protesting anything that irritates users of Linux. We wish, however, that someone would write an operating system with us as a mascot, and it's just totally unfair...splutter, splutter..." (trails off in cloud of bubbles as a polar bear lopes into view.) EEK!

Here's a wild feed if anyone's interested.

there are many many people who would love the hardware you use right now. Mabye it won't be state of the art any more...who cares? imagine all the stuff that you are using it for - - at last us below-the-poverty-line may be able to do those things too... I'm pretty damn happy using djgpp, IE 3.0, 1-2-3, and a whole whack of programs instead of having to use DOSSHELL, EDIT, and and the like... don't just toss your old computer parts, if there is anything to salvage, salvage it and give it to groups such as Sasktel Pioneers, or whoever it is that locally distributes computers to those who can't get them when they are straight out of the box... just as people 10 years from now will be tossing computers that can't do real-time, surrealistic fractal VR ... there is no excuse to throw any computer out, unless there is something seriously wrong with it. stupidity is not an excuse, either.

hell SETI needs processing power, even...

Preach it! The bleeding hearts will run from crisis to crisis trying to find things to blame on humanity. One day it's poverty, the next day it's the environment. It doesn't matter if their arguments conflict, however! As long as they hide behind wide-eyed arctic seals and starving kids in Ethiopia, people will continue to ignore common sense get suckered into their pathetic campaigns against rational thought.