Slashdot Mirror


Clam That Was Killed Determining Its Age Was Over 100 Years Older Than Estimated

schwit1 writes "In 2006, climate change experts from Bangor University in north Wales found a very special clam while dredging the seabeds of Iceland. At that time scientists counted the rings on the inside shell to determine that the clam was the ripe old age of 405. Unfortunately, by opening the clam which scientists refer to as 'Ming,' they killed it instantly. Cut to 2013, researchers have determined that the original calculations of Ming's age were wrong, and that the now deceased clam was actually 102 years older than originally thought. Ming was 507 years old at the time of its demise."

366 comments

  1. Shame on them by 2.7182 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What was the point of examining this individual animal?

    1. Re:Shame on them by msauve · · Score: 5, Funny

      To ask what its name was. Now we know it was named "Ming." Science marches onward.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    2. Re:Shame on them by DavidClarkeHR · · Score: 5, Funny

      What was the point of examining this individual animal?

      Look at us still talking when there's science to do...

      --
      - Nec Impar Pluribus, or so I'm told.
    3. Re:Shame on them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably meant "ming" as in "ming'er" or British slang for disgusting.

    4. Re:Shame on them by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 3, Funny

      There's a theory that the older the clam, the better clam chowder it makes.

      We'll have to use science to find out for sure, just need to get more 500 year old clams to get a larger sample size.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    5. Re: Shame on them by x181 · · Score: 2

      this is a triumph; huge success. (rip clam)

    6. Re:Shame on them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      to kill it.

    7. Re:Shame on them by Fluffeh · · Score: 5, Informative

      It was actually named after the Ming Dynasty - which was around when the clam started life. Even with the additional 100ish years added, the name still fits as the Ming dynasty was still around at the time.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    8. Re:Shame on them by Aranykai · · Score: 5, Informative

      The summary incorrectly states they killed it to examine it. In reality, it was frozen upon capture (standard procedure as they were gathering samples for study) and was long dead by the time they opened it for study, or realized it was hundreds of years old.

      --
      If sharing a song makes you a pirate, what do I have to share to be a ninja?
    9. Re:Shame on them by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      Why were they freezing random clams exactly? Was it on the dinner menu and they wanted to keep it fresh?

    10. Re:Shame on them by Aranykai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, you catch them in bulk, and preserve them for later examination by freezing. I doubt they would make good eating, but the reason is about the same. Its not pleasant to examine a 500 year old clam in a lab that's been sitting in a box for weeks/months/years decomposing.

      --
      If sharing a song makes you a pirate, what do I have to share to be a ninja?
    11. Re: Shame on them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      all your base are belong to us

    12. Re: Shame on them by mpbrede · · Score: 2

      Err... All your clam are belong to us?

    13. Re:Shame on them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      wouldn't that be "already around at the time"?

    14. Re:Shame on them by EdIII · · Score: 4, Funny

      It was actually named after the Ming Dynasty

      That does make more sense than Ming the Merciless...

    15. Re:Shame on them by EdIII · · Score: 5, Funny

      Its not pleasant to examine a 500 year old clam

      That seems rather self explanatory doesn't it?

    16. Re:Shame on them by plover · · Score: 0

      It was actually named after the Ming Dynasty

      That does make more sense than Ming the Merciless...

      No, that was the guy who ordered it killed and opened. Flash Gordon was nowhere to be found, although they did have Queen on the radio in the lab.

      --
      John
    17. Re: Shame on them by Nodsnarb · · Score: 5, Funny

      Perhaps they should've called it Kenny...

    18. Re: Shame on them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hey...I know her.

    19. Re:Shame on them by icebike · · Score: 2

      What was the point of examining this individual animal?

      To find out how old it was. Seems fairly obvious. Research, like omelets, occasionally requires breaking a few eggs.

      Its one animal, bored out of its gourd, form sitting in the same mud for 500 years. If it had one more brain cell, it would
      be capable of a synapse, but probably even the lone brain cell was thankful to end the monotony.
       

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    20. Re:Shame on them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they go on to find it's yet another 100 years older, they could rename it Owain Glyndwr.

    21. Re:Shame on them by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      What was the point of examining this individual animal?

      To settle a bet over who pays for drinks .. or something else as ludicrous.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    22. Re:Shame on them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What was the point of examining this individual animal?

      Tasty, tasty chowder.

    23. Re:Shame on them by davester666 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I believe in this case, science lurches onward.

      I hope they at least cooked and ate it.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    24. Re:Shame on them by meerling · · Score: 3, Funny

      To identify it's age and growth rate at various years which not only yields information about the clams, and by extension a whole chunk of that areas ecology over time, but it also gives a climate data as well. Sure, it's not daily temps, but it's still important, especially when you don't have a lot of other sources to get data from. Let's just say Iceland doesn't have a whole lot of choices for extrapolating the old climate data from.

      Besides, it was bound to be chowder or seagull bait after it got dredged up anyhow.

    25. Re:Shame on them by Seumas · · Score: 2

      Something something "climate change".

    26. Re: Shame on them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kill Clam and Carry On

    27. Re:Shame on them by Elky+Elk · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, the scientists were very shellfish.

    28. Re:Shame on them by SternisheFan · · Score: 4, Funny
      In order to save the clam, we had to destroy it.

      And it was delicious!

    29. Re:Shame on them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      something something "terrorist"?

    30. Re:Shame on them by gl4ss · · Score: 1, Funny

      as far as I can tell they were dredging them for the explicit purpose of measuring their ages?

      (how that relates to climate science I don't get, but I suppose if all the money is in "climate science" studies then biologists have to start calling themselves that too...)

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    31. Re:Shame on them by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      ITYM clamate change.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    32. Re:Shame on them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What was the point of examining this individual animal?

      It was the only way to find out who won the bet.

    33. Re:Shame on them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Clam shells provide accurate historical temperature data. The problem with using a free shell is that you don't known how old it is.
      By having a living one they now that the last "ring" is now.
      From what I have heard clam shells are accurate down to a degree so this shell could indicate if there actually have been a several degree temperature rise the last 500 years.

    34. Re:Shame on them by glavenoid · · Score: 1

      I just wanted to personally thank you for what is the best comment I've ever read on /.

      --
      I, for one, am looking forward to the inevitable /. beta rollout fallout.
    35. Re:Shame on them by clickclickdrone · · Score: 1

      It was actually named after the Ming Dynasty

      I think you'll find the minger reference was a joke...

      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    36. Re: Shame on them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even the bearded ones! yay!

    37. Re:Shame on them by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      It was actually named after the Ming Dynasty

      That does make more sense than Ming the Merciless...

      And you're not in the least concerned that there's a whole dynasty of them!?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    38. Re:Shame on them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What was the point of examining this individual animal?"

      The scientist wanted to determine quick ways to identify over 500 year old clams in his chowder.
      Because they taste kind of 'old'.

    39. Re:Shame on them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Unless, of course, they're omelettes du fromage.

    40. Re:Shame on them by nightsky30 · · Score: 1

      No beer and no TV make Homer something something...

    41. Re:Shame on them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I invited your best friend, Ming. Of course, he couldn't come, because you murdered him.

    42. Re:Shame on them by Nemius · · Score: 1

      Clam Science - We do what we must, because we can.

    43. Re:Shame on them by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 3, Informative

      Clam shells use up CO2 from the ocean and various minerals. So looking at the "age rings" like the rings of trees you get an idea how fast the clam was growing each year. And hence you get an idea about the sea water composition at that specific year in the area where the clam lived. However I could imagine the clam might have moved quite far over its life time.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    44. Re:Shame on them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ming is quim/pussy/poon/vajayjay/trim/strange/pink/vagina/etc. (Source: I'm a heterosexual bloke)

      If you find it disgusting I assume it's because you're a poofter.

    45. Re:Shame on them by Bigbutt · · Score: 2

      Abalone

      [John]

      --
      Shit better not happen!
    46. Re: Shame on them by Rhurazz12 · · Score: 0

      To know exact measurement of the clam's age, they had to examine a little more but unfortunately they killed the poor thing. At the same time, it wasn't a total loss to the scientific world, but hey he died for a good cause. Found out he was as old as time itself

    47. Re:Shame on them by Stele · · Score: 0

      At 500 years old, it's beard must have been huge!

    48. Re:Shame on them by RivenAleem · · Score: 0

      Oh, you've never eaten old clams then.

    49. Re:Shame on them by dave420 · · Score: 1

      So because you don't know, it must automatically be nonsense. Wonderful logic, sparky.

    50. Re:Shame on them by Gorkamecha · · Score: 2

      +1 Groan

    51. Re:Shame on them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be "minge".

    52. Re:Shame on them by Megane · · Score: 1

      The clambake is a lie.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    53. Re:Shame on them by zidium · · Score: 2

      Wow! What an incredibly low bar you set!

      --
      Slashdot Valentines Beta Massacre: iT WORKED! The boycotts killed Beta!!
    54. Re:Shame on them by GameMaster · · Score: 1

      For the people who are still alive.

      --

      Rules of Conduct:
      #1 - The DM is always right.
      #2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
    55. Re:Shame on them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't reddit, yo.

    56. Re:Shame on them by glavenoid · · Score: 1

      You *are* new here. I've been reading this site since the beginning and I can state, unequivocally, that the comment was literally the best thing this site has ever produced. Pure genius compared to all the other drivel that gets routinely upmodded around here.

      I defy you to point to a better comment in the entirety of recorded Slashdot history.

      --
      I, for one, am looking forward to the inevitable /. beta rollout fallout.
    57. Re:Shame on them by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      To ask what its name was. Now we know it was named "Ming."

      Just to find out its name? Now that was merciless.

    58. Re:Shame on them by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      Nah, once she got over her infatuation with Flash, Princess Aura (and her husband Prince Barrin) isn't a bad sort.

    59. Re: Shame on them by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

      Note to nerds: "Clam" is a euphamism for "vagina".

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    60. Re: Shame on them by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2, Funny

      Note to grammar Nazis: I misspelled "euphemism".

      Note to nerds: A vagina is a superficially clamlike object between a female's legs.

      Note to nerds: A female is a person who bears children when people who are not you mate with them.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    61. Re: Shame on them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those bastards!

    62. Re:Shame on them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm lost.

    63. Re:Shame on them by r_newman · · Score: 1

      What was the point of examining this individual animal?

      Hunter mentality.

      "Wow, what an amazing/majestic/beautiful creature. Let's kill it."

      --
      Bzzzzzt..."AAAAaaaaarrrgh!!!" Thud.
    64. Re:Shame on them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Shame? You sound like a Daily Fail reader, where this absurd story was initially hyped to keep their derpy readers outraged.
      It's just a clam that was dredged up. It had no loved ones, or stories to tell. I'm sure there are plenty more, just as old and older out there. There's no way they just happened to dredge up the oldest one.

    65. Re: Shame on them by airdweller · · Score: 1

      Aren't you a delight :)

    66. Re:Shame on them by hondo77 · · Score: 1

      I like this one.

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    67. Re:Shame on them by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      Clam shells use up CO2 from the ocean and various minerals. So looking at the "age rings" like the rings of trees you get an idea how fast the clam was growing each year. And hence you get an idea about the sea water composition at that specific year in the area where the clam lived. However I could imagine the clam might have moved quite far over its life time.

      It would be more accurate to say the growth lines are affected due to changes in deposition rather than they use CO2 in their growth. There was an interesting paper in 2009 that showed that certain animals increased Ca deposition in the presence of high CO2 levels. Those were lobsters, shrimp, crabs, and limpets. The reason for this is still not understood. However clams showed a decrease. It also showed that this did not occur until atmospheric concentrations reached 1000ppm before either occurred. Current levels are

      There was a paper in 2012 that showed increased CO2 levels increased dissolution of snail shells, but calcium deposition rates were not affected. Another paper in 2012 demonstrated that the growth lines are affected much more by salinity and temperature variations than CO2 levels.

    68. Re:Shame on them by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

      Death to MING!

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    69. Re:Shame on them by CurryCamel · · Score: 1

      That was 9 unrelated words and two synonyms for me.
      Guess that makes me a woman or gay, then?

    70. Re:Shame on them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Curiosity killed the cat^wclam.

    71. Re:Shame on them by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Is that limpet mine?

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    72. Re:Shame on them by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The last Carolina Parakeet was killed by an ornithologist. It's not just hunters.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    73. Re:Shame on them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No mercy for Ming ;__;

    74. Re:Shame on them by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      If it had one more brain cell, it would be capable of a synapse, but probably even the lone brain cell was thankful to end the monotony.

      And yet, it thought Windows 8 was a good idea.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    75. Re:Shame on them by memnock · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, I have no idea how to find it, but there was a thread from several years back where a commenter wrote something like a hockey play-by-play with Jesus as the goalie. I can't do any justice to the thread, but there was something like ... 'he gets the glove on it and Jesus saves for the win!' That was probably the best thread I've ever seen on /.

  2. Non-destructive testing by seven+of+five · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Ever heard of it?

    1. Re:Non-destructive testing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they used a hammer, right?

    2. Re:Non-destructive testing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...why? It's just a clam.

    3. Re:Non-destructive testing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they should have called the clam Bn_Tre: "It became necessary to destroy the clam to save it"

      (Hmm. Someone's saving Slashdot from that evil UTF-8.)

    4. Re:Non-destructive testing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are clam rings really hard to see?

      Just by looking at it, wouldn't they have had a general idea that the clam was really old? Looking at tree rings, for example, just by glancing at it there is a HUGE difference between a 10 year old tree and a 100 year old tree. I would assume the same is for clam rings.

      So, they could've maybe thought, "Hey this clam is really old. Let's get the data without killing the poor thing?"

    5. Re:Non-destructive testing by Fluffeh · · Score: 3, Informative

      there is a HUGE difference between a 10 year old tree and a 100 year old tree

      But not so much visible difference between a 400 year old tree compared to a 500 year old tree.

      Also, there are two places to count clam rings - and the hinge is generally used as the better one (though opening the clam to see the hinge rings kills it), though in this case due to SOO many rings, the ones on the inner hinge were not as easy to count as the ones on the outer shell - hence some (or one in four) were missed.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    6. Re:Non-destructive testing by uniquename72 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      My first thought was: Do MRIs work on clams? This is like the genius who killed the oldest known tree in the world to see how old it was.

    7. Re:Non-destructive testing by BitterOak · · Score: 2

      True. "He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom."

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    8. Re:Non-destructive testing by queazocotal · · Score: 3, Funny

      MRI will work just fine.
      However, it'll just tell you that it's not got cancer.
      It does not have resolution enough to resolve the perhaps .05mm thick annual rings.
      A number of obvious approaches occur - for example - cut a small plug of shell with a plug cutter.
      This is basically a drillbit with a hollow core, designed to remove a rod of material intact.
      Yes, this will somewhat injure the clam when the small plug is removed, but it can then be polished and examined microscopically to determine the age.
      My first thought would be to take this rod, and examine the composition in an appropriate electron microscope.

      The clam would be slightly injured, but it's unlikely to be a clamity.

    9. Re:Non-destructive testing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You dredged up a bunch o clams, find a good way to keep them preserved until you can observe them.

    10. Re:Non-destructive testing by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 2

      It's SchrÃdinger's clam.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    11. Re:Non-destructive testing by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      errr... Schrodinger's clam .... so much for cut and paste.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    12. Re:Non-destructive testing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clams have feelings too
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmpH19HSLrs

    13. Re:Non-destructive testing by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      A number of obvious approaches occur - for example - cut a small plug of shell with a plug cutter.

      Plugs are pretty much useless. A clam's shell is essentially a cross-section of a tree - it's growth 'rings' starting at the center (the hinge) and running out to the rim. All a plug gets you is a sample of a small number of the rings.

    14. Re:Non-destructive testing by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      Good plan. Wolud it be any different if the clam was dead among a bulk batch of dead clams already? I mean, you don't want to hurt the poor dead thing any further...

    15. Re:Non-destructive testing by the_other_chewey · · Score: 2

      errr... Schrodinger's clam .... so much for cut and paste.

      Here you go: ö
      (using the HTML entity. slashdot's encoding is still WTF-8 based)

    16. Re: Non-destructive testing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      w t fÃck?

    17. Re:Non-destructive testing by clickclickdrone · · Score: 1

      so much for cut and paste

      As opposed to the poor clam who was cut and became paste.

      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    18. Re:Non-destructive testing by omnichad · · Score: 1

      It may have been at the time, but reading at the link you gave they've found an older one since.

    19. Re:Non-destructive testing by Megane · · Score: 1

      Becasuse a senator said we had to open it to find out what was inside it.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    20. Re:Non-destructive testing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever heard of it?

      Apparently these people haven't heard the fable describing the fate of the goose that was laying eggs made of gold.

      The allegory isn't a perfect analogy to what happened; although killing something to find out how old it is because it would be interesting to know how old it was instead of it continuing to get older, is something that implies a kind of selfish ignorance that also exists in the story.

    21. Re:Non-destructive testing by zidium · · Score: 1

      It's nearly 2014 and Slashdot *still* munges UTF-8 at the database layer.

      What incompetents!!!

      --
      Slashdot Valentines Beta Massacre: iT WORKED! The boycotts killed Beta!!
    22. Re:Non-destructive testing by zidium · · Score: 1

      Which you could then use statistical analysis on...

      --
      Slashdot Valentines Beta Massacre: iT WORKED! The boycotts killed Beta!!
    23. Re:Non-destructive testing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but it could very well have been the oldest living clam in the world

    24. Re:Non-destructive testing by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      No you couldn't. The rings are shaped exactly so based on what happens while they're forming; they're not shaped based on a biological pattern inherent in the clam and executed in isolation from the environment.

    25. Re:Non-destructive testing by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Which would be.... pretty much pointless because you wouldn't learn anything useful.

  3. 7 Years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    It took 7 years for scientists to count to 507 (the rings the clamshell form). I'm glad my math skills are superior. It must be all that metric math in the UK...

    1. Re:7 Years by DavidClarkeHR · · Score: 5, Funny

      It took 7 years for scientists to count to 507 (the rings the clamshell form). I'm glad my math skills are superior. It must be all that metric math in the UK...

      Yeah, Silly Metric. Only intellectually superior countries are holding out on this issue ...

      --
      - Nec Impar Pluribus, or so I'm told.
    2. Re:7 Years by camperdave · · Score: 3, Interesting

      When was the last time you actually counted as high as 507? I'm not talking about counting to 100 five times and then another seven, but actually counting each number from 1 to 507?

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    3. Re:7 Years by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 0

      Does it count if I say "one thousand" between each number?

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    4. Re:7 Years by bitt3n · · Score: 5, Funny

      When was the last time you actually counted as high as 507? I'm not talking about counting to 100 five times and then another seven, but actually counting each number from 1 to 507?

      Seems like it would take a while. How many numbers is that, exactly?

    5. Re:7 Years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not that long ago, sadly.

    6. Re:7 Years by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      the real skill is in taking a picture and counting while marking as counted.. shouldn't really take that long. it's just more probable someone fuzzed up the first calc and they recounted it just now.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    7. Re:7 Years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your peanus must have 16 ring'kles on its shaft?

    8. Re:7 Years by Atomic+Fro · · Score: 1

      Several times per day. I work in a pharmacy.

      --

      ==================
      Hippie Logger Jock
      ==================
    9. Re:7 Years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      506, obviously. Kids these days...

    10. Re:7 Years by feral-troll · · Score: 2

      Your peanus must have 16 ring'kles on its shaft?

      Is that one of the side effects of intelligent design?

    11. Re:7 Years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They first got the age in imperial years. Now the have metric years which like every metric unit is a little smaller than the imperial one and so they get a new bigger number,

    12. Re:7 Years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      7 years does seem like a long time. My preferred explanation of why it took so long is that their concentration was broken repeatedly by a douchebag colleague that kept spouting random numbers while they were counting the rings.

    13. Re:7 Years by VortexCortex · · Score: 5, Funny

      When was the last time you actually counted as high as 507? I'm not talking about counting to 100 five times and then another seven, but actually counting each number from 1 to 507?

      Seems like it would take a while. How many numbers is that, exactly?

      1,413 Arabic digits total counting up from one in base ten; 9 single digits, 90 double digits, and 408 triple digits
      -- or, approximately 0.00000000000012851160136e-42 printed US Libraries of Congress (excluding their digital archive).

      At a slightly faster than normal speech rate I have observed counting aloud in American English from 1 to 507 in five minutes and thirty five seconds (metric). Counting is a skill we teach our infants, mechanical machines, and even Parrots here on Earth. Most hand held counting entities here could count silently over the aforementioned range in a fraction of a second. The apex organic creatures on this planet can reliably detect errors in a sequential numeric stream at a rate of 15 three digit numerals per second; That's an error correction bandwidth of 45 Arabic numerals per second.

      Despite the apparent capacity of their neural networks, human memory storage and retrieval speed scales exponentially in proportion to the amount of data input, making them essentially useless as mass media storage devices for all but the simplest and most sensational of information. Because of horrible failures in past attempts at eugenics the human wetware architecture is still a sophomoric monolithic kernel design: Many functions (like breath control) which could be efficiently distributed about their systems instead wastefully consume thought cycles. Lacking direct genetic-level knowledge conveyance a new mind's cultural installation process is measured in decades. Due to millions of years of patching by trial and error human cognitive circuits are in disarray, often producing unwanted irrational responses due to outdated evolutionary directives known as "feelings", and there currently staunch resistance finds any who talk of correcting of these dangerous glitches.

      Regardless of humanity's pathetic cognitive capabilities we remain unwaveringly chauvinistically assured of our potential as a space faring race -- even if it's been four decades since we last visited the nearest celestial body in person. If we can not be granted membership as citizens and are deemed not useful as menial mental minions then I implore the Virgonian Super-Cluster Galactic Conciliate to at least consider this planet a case study in how not to advance as an interstellar society. As you can plainly see we are mostly harmless, and although the wonders of the Universe are tempting, we'll be just as happy if left quarantined and isolated in the existing Cosmic Space-Time Reservation.

      I apologize for the rambling nature of my reply: Though familiar with the issues I am not an official diplomat. We would take you to our leaders, but we're rather ashamed of them presently...

    14. Re:7 Years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More than you can count to plus one!

    15. Re:7 Years by TheSeatOfMyPants · · Score: 1

      Is it really "intelligent" design to leave a person's privates dangling loose in the air and changing sizes all the time? (paraphrased from a quote by author Karen Chance)

      --
      Now mostly at Usenet:comp.misc & SoylentNews.org (it's made of people!)
    16. Re:7 Years by bob_super · · Score: 1

      The number is now on the outside so that you don't chop it off to count the rings.
      The problem is whether people will start chopping them off to use the nice numbers on their doors.

      [/Pratchett]

    17. Re:7 Years by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      Yeah, Silly Metric. Only intellectually superior countries are holding out on this issue ...

      'cause it's so much better to be schizophrenic, hating someone while desperately imitating them ...

    18. Re:7 Years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      hell its allready been 500 years and you merkins still cant spell 'colour' correctly Not to mention the confusion over the the letter 's' with a 'z'

    19. Re:7 Years by camperdave · · Score: 2

      Really? You count

      .,.98,99,100,101,102...198,199,200,201...

      rather than

      ...98,99,100.
      1,2,3 ... 98,99,200.
      1,2,3...?

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    20. Re:7 Years by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2

      Seems like it would take a while. How many numbers is that, exactly?

      Well, last time I checked there are infinite number of numbers between 1 and 507. And they say there are more rational numbers between 1 and 2 than there are natural numbers. Well, should ask the Superstar Rajnikant. He is the only one who has counted all the way to infinity (twice) and divided by zero too.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    21. Re:7 Years by Voyager529 · · Score: 2

      it's just more probable someone fuzzed up the first calc and they recounted it just now.

      ...So the first count was taken in Florida in the year 2000, and was fudged due to a discrepancy regarding the dimpled shell?

    22. Re:7 Years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it really "intelligent" design to leave a person's privates dangling loose in the air and changing sizes all the time? (paraphrased from a quote by author Karen Chance)

      Yes, they require cooling.

    23. Re:7 Years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When was the last time you actually counted as high as 507? [...]

      Over the summer, I counted to 1023 on my fingers (binary) just to prove to my wife that you can count to 1023 on your fingers. It took considerably less than 7 years.

    24. Re:7 Years by Xyrus · · Score: 2

      Are you talking African numbers or European? :)

      --
      ~X~
    25. Re:7 Years by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Oddly Enough, is that you?

    26. Re:7 Years by ImprovOmega · · Score: 1

      And they say there are more rational numbers between 1 and 2 than there are natural numbers.

      They're both infinite, but the set of natural numbers is a countable infinite set (indeed, it is the set by which all other countably infinite sets are determined). The set of rational numbers between 1 and 2 is an uncountable infinite set - which is to say that any one-to-one mapping between the set of natural numbers and the rational numbers between 1 and 2 will leave out some possibilities and some of the rational numbers will not be mapped. As such, the set of rational numbers between 1 and 2 is a "bigger" infinite set.

    27. Re:7 Years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      though it was seven years before she had sex with you again

    28. Re:7 Years by 14erCleaner · · Score: 1

      When was the last time you actually counted as high as 507? I'm not talking about counting to 100 five times and then another seven, but actually counting each number from 1 to 507?

      I tried it just now, but around 30 I got bored and started browsing the web instead.

      --
      Have you read my blog lately?
    29. Re:7 Years by John.Banister · · Score: 1

      There's more real numbers between 1 & 2, but a correspondence can be made between the rational numbers and the natural numbers. Draw the first part of an infinite box, with natural numbers running along each edge and the rational numbers formed as a fraction of those natural numbers at the points of intersection. Such a box contains all rational numbers. Now imagine a pathway zig-zag'ing diagonally, starting at the corner of the box you've drawn. Proceeding along that pathway you will reach every one of the rational numbers, and so can put them into a correspondence with the natural numbers by sequentially numbering them as you come to them along that pathway.

    30. Re:7 Years by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Wrong

      Set up a two-dimensional array representing rational numbers with natural numbers on both axes. Numbers on the horizontal axis represent the numerator, numbers on the vertical axis the denominator. Then take elements in the following order: 1,1 2,1 1,2 3,1 2,2 1,3 4,1 3,2 2,3 1,4 5,1 ....

      Start along a new diagonal each time the current diagonal is exhausted. In such manner, a countable set of all (positive/positive) rational numbers is arranged in a countable fashion, and the method is trivially extended to cover non-positive entries.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    31. Re:7 Years by mwehle · · Score: 1

      When was the last time you actually counted as high as 507? I'm not talking about counting to 100 five times and then another seven, but actually counting each number from 1 to 507?

      I too would like this clarified, because while it is quite common to count to 100 five times and then another seven, it is much harder to actually count each number. I know that for years I used to take the well-known cowardly shortcut when counting to 507, but through diligent practice broke myself of the habit and now habitually do the actual counting.

      --
      Wir sind geboren, um frei zu sein - Rio Reiser
    32. Re:7 Years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on the drug, but some times yes. Though we count by fives, so it's more like 5, 10, 15...500, 505, 507.

    33. Re:7 Years by ImprovOmega · · Score: 1

      I did indeed have a brain freeze. I meant to say real numbers between 1 and 2, not rational numbers. Shoot, Sqrt(2) and Sqrt(3) alone have infinite digits to them.

  4. MmmmmChewy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ain't gettin' that in your basket of steamers!

  5. mankind is a cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are monsters and they be us!

    1. Re:mankind is a cancer by akeeneye · · Score: 3, Interesting

      “The Earth has a skin and that skin has diseases, one of its diseases is called man.” - attributed to Nietzsche

      --
      The man who dies rich dies disgraced. -- Andrew Carnegie
    2. Re:mankind is a cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      "And crawling on the planet's face, some insects... called the Human Race."

        - The Criminologist

    3. Re:mankind is a cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Grow a fucking neck.

    4. Re:mankind is a cancer by Scarletdown · · Score: 2

      "Clams got legs!"

      - B.C.

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    5. Re:mankind is a cancer by hutsell · · Score: 1

      "The Earth has a skin and that skin has diseases, one of its diseases is called man." - attributed to Nietzsche

      I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals.

      Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague and we are the cure.

      ~ Agent Smith

      --
      Yesterday's Weirdness is Tomorrow's Reason Why
  6. Wow, this _is_ kind of a shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I am a scientist myself, but even I feel slightly bit disturbed by this realisation - that the oldest animal on Earth was killed in the experiment. I don't know why, I guess I have some kind of respect for the uniqueness of the status of this animal.

    1. Re:Wow, this _is_ kind of a shame by game+kid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The even bigger shame is that this is what scientists end up doing...just imagine less science-friendly oil drillers and poachers who don't give a shit about clams that are in the way of, well, *tosses coin* clams.

      --
      You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
    2. Re:Wow, this _is_ kind of a shame by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 2

      The oldest animal on Earth that we know of was killed. I'm sure there's lots of older stuff out there that we just aren't aware of.

    3. Re:Wow, this _is_ kind of a shame by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually when they do that offshore drilling it tends to thrill paleontologists. Nothing macro-scale is really alive at those depths, but things old dead and long since buried tend to surface, several of which would have been undiscovered without oil drilling.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    4. Re:Wow, this _is_ kind of a shame by DaveAtFraud · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The oldest animal on Earth that we know of was killed. I'm sure there's lots of older stuff out there that we just aren't aware of.

      Hush. Now someone is going to go out, find it and kill it. Then probably say, "Yeah, that clam wasn't theoldest living animal. This was."

      Cheers,
      Dave

      --
      They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
      Ben
    5. Re:Wow, this _is_ kind of a shame by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 1

      Shhhh. Now you're just trying to invent a new sport!

    6. Re:Wow, this _is_ kind of a shame by ArbitraryName · · Score: 2

      This was hardly the oldest animal on earth. There are species of sponges that live for thousands of years.

    7. Re:Wow, this _is_ kind of a shame by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      And that's going to be found in Loch Ness in Scotland.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    8. Re:Wow, this _is_ kind of a shame by EdIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I've been on site during drilling collecting mud samples. It is ridiculously cool to take samples and put them under the microscope and see things that were alive back when the dinosaurs roamed the Earth.

    9. Re:Wow, this _is_ kind of a shame by TheloniousToady · · Score: 4, Funny

      I am a scientist myself, but even I feel slightly bit disturbed by this realisation - that the oldest animal on Earth was killed in the experiment. I don't know why, I guess I have some kind of respect for the uniqueness of the status of this animal.

      I understand completely. But it's OK, the clam had already outlived all its friends and even its children. What else did it have to live for? Its bucket list was marked off long ago. (Yes, it was a "clam bucket" list.) The list had only two items: "Filter seawater" and "Reproduce". Been there, done that. For over five hundred years. Boring...

      At least the poor thing never ended up in a nursing home. Bad food, nobody comes to visit, rude staff. Feh! Better off dead...

    10. Re:Wow, this _is_ kind of a shame by Miseph · · Score: 4, Funny

      "At least the poor thing never ended up in a nursing home. Bad food[...]"

      After they were done, they donated the remains to a local nursing home to turn into soup. A Welsh nursing home. Your comment, however accurate it may be, is just cruelly throwing salt in the wound. Not literally, of course. The soup could probably use it if you did, though.

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
    11. Re:Wow, this _is_ kind of a shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "At least the poor thing never ended up in a nursing home. Bad food[...]"

      After they were done, they donated the remains to a local nursing home to turn into soup. A Welsh nursing home. Your comment, however accurate it may be, is just cruelly throwing salt in the wound. Not literally, of course. The soup could probably use it if you did, though.

      It was a salt-water clam.... There was already plenty of salt in that wound.

    12. Re:Wow, this _is_ kind of a shame by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 4, Funny

      They did manage to get in a short interview before it died and the ancient clam said, "The first hundred years were the worst and the second hundred years, they were the worst too. The third hundred years I didn't enjoy at all. After that I went into a bit of a decline."

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    13. Re:Wow, this _is_ kind of a shame by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      I thought it was a crime punishable by exile to England to eat any non-leek based food in Wales.

    14. Re:Wow, this _is_ kind of a shame by DaHat · · Score: 1

      "It's coming right for us!"

    15. Re:Wow, this _is_ kind of a shame by dargaud · · Score: 1

      Those same long-life northern clams are fished for commercially and eaten. In Iceland, but mostly sold to east-asian markets.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    16. Re:Wow, this _is_ kind of a shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't remember the example, so cannot cite, but there was a lot of conservationist fury some years ago over a species of frog going extinct. It turned out that what killed the frogs wasn't "climate change", it was a fungus. The delivery vector for the fungus turned out to be ... the conservationists and biologists studying them in the wild.

    17. Re:Wow, this _is_ kind of a shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're likely thinking of the sudden decline of the panamanian golden frog due to chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis , which had a probably vector of humans. Didn't necessarily have to be conservationists though, as could also been tourists or 'pet hunters'.

      That said, that fungus seemed to hit a few other species hard as well in the past.

    18. Re:Wow, this _is_ kind of a shame by zAPPzAPP · · Score: 1

      They went and collected a random sample of clamps out of the million(billion) clamps down there, and one out of their sample happened to be over 500 years old.

      How do you see the chance that they randomly picked the oldest clamp on the planet?

      By the laws of large numbers there are a lot of clamps still down there, that are older than this one.
      So rest asured, the oldest animal on the planet was not killed (I would have said 'is still alive' but that's circular logic).

    19. Re:Wow, this _is_ kind of a shame by fatphil · · Score: 1

      Only argot (and possibly ergot) infested biologists would call sponges "animals". But they're the people who assert that most nuts aren't "nuts" and most berries aren't "berries".

      They really need to take a step back, take a deep breath, and admit that their use of the language is wrong.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    20. Re:Wow, this _is_ kind of a shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe oldest *known* animal. You can't be certain there isn't a clam down there that's 650 years old, can you?

    21. Re:Wow, this _is_ kind of a shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wanted to see exotic Island, the jewel of North Atlantic. I wanted to meet interesting and stimulating creatures of an old even ancient age and... kill them. I wanted to be the first kid on my block to get a confirmed kill.

    22. Re:Wow, this _is_ kind of a shame by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Did not know that spongs are animal ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    23. Re:Wow, this _is_ kind of a shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I felt bad for the clam at first, myself. Then I realized: Would I like to spend 500 years as a clam?

    24. Re:Wow, this _is_ kind of a shame by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      Oh they haven't killed the oldest animal on earth, he's still asleep, dreaming.

    25. Re:Wow, this _is_ kind of a shame by varmfskii · · Score: 1

      And what pray tell would you say that sponges are if not animals?

    26. Re:Wow, this _is_ kind of a shame by JTsyo · · Score: 2

      Thank goodness they did too, that clam was costing the other clams a fortune in end of life healthcare for the last 400 years.

    27. Re:Wow, this _is_ kind of a shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Still not as bad as cutting down a 4862 year old tree in my opinion.

    28. Re:Wow, this _is_ kind of a shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am a scientist myself, but even I feel slightly bit disturbed by this realisation - that the oldest animal on Earth was killed in the experiment. I don't know why, I guess I have some kind of respect for the uniqueness of the status of this animal.

      I am a scientist myself and I use my words very carefully when I write. Why do you believe it was the oldest animal on Earth?

    29. Re:Wow, this _is_ kind of a shame by Nick · · Score: 1

      I was intrigued by your .sig but the URL in it is returning 404.

      --
      Fuck Ajit Pai
    30. Re:Wow, this _is_ kind of a shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am a scientist myself, but even I feel slightly bit disturbed by this realisation - that the oldest animal on Earth was killed in the experiment. I don't know why, I guess I have some kind of respect for the uniqueness of the status of this animal.

      I wonder what sort of scientist you are if dredging up a couple of random clams makes you decide that the oldest one in the bunch must be the oldest on earth. This wasn't the oldest animal on earth, it was just the oldest they caught. If they randomly dredged up a 500 year old one, there'll be plenty of 510 year old ones to go around. If not now, then in 10 years.

      Do you ever wonder how old the oyster or mussel you're eating is, or for that matter, does the fact that cows only live 10 times as short justify killing them more so than clams? Get over yourself please.

    31. Re:Wow, this _is_ kind of a shame by quenda · · Score: 1

      the oldest animal on Earth was killed in the experiment. I don't know why, I guess I have some kind of respect for the uniqueness of the status of this animal.

      For a scientist, you have made a big mistake.
        There is a bit of Heisenberg here: It is the oldest known animal, but we only know the age because it was killed. There are presumably countless older clams still on the seabed. I doubt they survive well in captivity. The "uniqueness of the status of this animal", as you put it, relies on it being dead. Want to put on a deep-diving suit and start counting rings?

    32. Re:Wow, this _is_ kind of a shame by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      Didn't necessarily have to be conservationists though, as could also been tourists or 'pet hunters'.

      Or Lindsay Lohan...

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    33. Re:Wow, this _is_ kind of a shame by vandamme · · Score: 1

      I doubt that. I bet he was as happy as a clam.

  7. HA! by gandhi_2 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Science 1, Nature 0

    1. Re:HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Incorrect. The right result is:

      Science 1, Private Enterprise ?, Nature ?

      And by the way, there's always going to be an "older alive animal" on Earth (until we all die, that is).

    2. Re:HA! by Xest · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't say Nature 0. If you factor in every natural disaster ever, every death due to disease, and every death from poisoning by natures more dangerous fruits etc. I'd wager Nature has a pretty decent lead on us.

    3. Re:HA! by JTsyo · · Score: 1

      In that case wouldn't the death of this clam also be a point for nature, seeing as human arose from nature and then killed the clam?

    4. Re:HA! by Xest · · Score: 1

      Of course, pedantically everything is natural.

      But in this context we're talking in the sense of human caused vs. non-human caused which isn't an uncommon use of the term natural vs. unnatural.

    5. Re:HA! by gandhi_2 · · Score: 1

      Hmm.
      Well, tell THAT to the Clam!
      Oh, that's right. He can't hear you. Because he's DEAD!

  8. Clearly... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Funny

    Our duty is clear: we must capture and kill as many clams as possible to locate an even older clam, thus obviating any guilt about having killed the oldest clam!

    1. Re:Clearly... by Scutter · · Score: 1

      That clam was asking for it.

      --

      "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
    2. Re:Clearly... by JustOK · · Score: 2

      Was it part of the Oysterhagen project?

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    3. Re:Clearly... by basecastula+ · · Score: 1

      Bodyworks?

    4. Re:Clearly... by JustOK · · Score: 1

      It was a clametary self-destruct system. It was meant to be used only if clamanity were suffering unbearably, with no hope of help ever coming.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    5. Re:Clearly... by plover · · Score: 1

      Oh please, it was already dying of a raging case of clamydia. His wife left him yeas ago for some mussel-bound guy, and he caught it from some one-night scallop. He had nothing left to live for anyway.

      --
      John
    6. Re:Clearly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the end, he was abalone.

  9. Clams on the half shell by LoRdTAW · · Score: 1

    "Unfortunately, by opening the clam which scientists refer to as 'Ming,' they killed it instantly."

    I hope they had some cocktail sauce on hand. That or a little lemmon.

    1. Re: Clams on the half shell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, Jack Lemmon was kind of a little guy. A lemon would be better; Lemmon tended to be bitter. Sorry, I'll clam up now. See you at the clambake?

  10. Science is Inherently Destructive by joelleo · · Score: 1, Informative

    Science destroys to understand. LHC smashes particles to examine their innards.Biologists dissect cadavers to examine their innards. Geologists smash rocks to examine their innards.

    In this case, the fact that the animal was still alive should have been indication enough that science should leave the old boy alone, or attempt only explicitly non-destructive examination. This sounds a lot like Indiana Jones's style archaeology...

    --
    "In the end, there is simply no weapon more devastating than the truth, delivered in just the right way." - tnk1
    1. Re:Science is Inherently Destructive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indiana Jones: Raiders of the Aging Clam

      Can't be much worse than the last one we've had.

    2. Re:Science is Inherently Destructive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RIP subatomic particle 54576215981235. You died for us to learn more.

    3. Re:Science is Inherently Destructive by MacTO · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Some science is destructive, while other science isn't. A lot of it depends upon the research objectives, as well as the available methods to conduct that research. In a lot of cases it is even imperative to do non-destructive studies, either for reasons of conscience or to generate reproducible results.

      Examples:

      We study stellar evolution through observation, because we are limited by the methods available.

      We study subatomic particles by smashing things together because we can only observe their interactions (i.e. we cannot observe them directly).

      We study many parts of the body using MRI because it is both unethical to destroy the subject and because it produces better results.

    4. Re:Science is Inherently Destructive by bob_super · · Score: 3, Funny

      > We study stellar evolution through observation, because we are limited by the methods available.

      I have no doubt that humans will smash stars together the morning after they finally acquire the technology. Actually, they'll pull an all-nighter instead, 'cause the kids are in bed and this shit's AWESOME!!!

    5. Re:Science is Inherently Destructive by synthesizerpatel · · Score: 1

      And this is why the incredible Hulk is, and will always be our greatest scientist.

    6. Re:Science is Inherently Destructive by RuffMasterD · · Score: 1

      Another example:

      Japan studies whales because they are delis... (couph) ... I mean, more research is needed. We need more funding so we can get larger sample sizes.

      --
      Human Rights, Article 12: Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence
    7. Re:Science is Inherently Destructive by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Technically, in the Earth-616 universe, Henry Pym is the Scientist Supr...HULK SMASH!

  11. Climate Scientists by barv · · Score: 0, Troll

    Shoot first. After the damage is done "Gee, maybe I was a little hasty."

    RIP the world economy.

    1. Re:Climate Scientists by Eskarel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So because a handful of scientists killed a clam to get some information about it all climate scientists are incompetent? Seriously.

    2. Re:Climate Scientists by kanweg · · Score: 2

      Economy is just money flowing around. It doesn't matter too much on what you spend it. You could waste for example enormous amounts of money on military forces without any particular benefit.

      In case of action against global warming, the very least you get is that you do longer with fuel, keeping the price low which happens to be good for consumers. Also, it keeps stuff like oil available for a longer period of time. Not a bad thing either. And that is true even if climate scientists were wrong. My Dunning-Kruger bet however is that they are more likely to be right than you or I, and in particular that whether they are right or wrong has nothing to do with economy and this bias should be left out when deciding whether they are wrong or right.

      In my country, houses used to use 3000 m3 gas for heating, these days it is 500 m3 or less without any loss of comfort. In my country we used to have a huge gas field. It is almost empty now. Instead of 30 years, we could have enjoyed it for over 150 years. Also, there are tremors now in that area of the country caused by the settling after the gas extraction, resulting in (costly) damage to housing. It pays to be frugal with resources.

      Bert

    3. Re:Climate Scientists by barv · · Score: 1

      I'm not bistable. As Noordhaus (Harvard economist I think) says, those people who pollute are getting a free ride. Noordhaus estimated $5-10/tonne CO2 tax would compensate society for that pollution. Maybe now it's $20 with inflation.

      Where I am, Greenies want a tax big enough to stabilize CO2. Estimates that I accept as realistic range from $500/tonne upwards. They won't tolerate Nuclear.

      And economy is not "just money flowing around". If it were, the USA would not be a great innovative power. The world powers would be the places with huge populations. (So yes, I've read Ayn Rand). Rome spent money on armies. Didn't make their economy great.

      So you have mine subsidy. It;s not unusual in areas built above coal mines in my country. Requires an Engineer to tell builders and Architects how to build houses that will "float". I understand the Japanese build multi story buildings that are earthquake proofed.

      Get with it. The world is not stable. The Sun has stopped having spots, which some people think means an ice age is (or would be if it weren't for CO2 burning) about to hit the world. Sea levels have always risen and fallen. So build Dykes. Weather warms up? Buy A/C. There is always a solution, but the wealthier the society, the better it will recover from disasters (such as the Phillipines).

    4. Re:Climate Scientists by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Translation: "Money! Blarghle blargh blargh I don't know how the world works beyond my own bank balance".

      Hint: Things are not all easy to solve. Agriculture can't be fixed by air conditioning. Dykes don't work everywhere they'd be needed. You are saying it's better to have disasters and recover from them (apart from the people who die or suffer), than to think and do what can be done to stop them from happening.

      Your ridiculous straw-men simply don't hold up to scrutiny. You haven't offered any facts, simply your guesses as to what will happen and how it can be fixed. Complaining about scientists when that's your retort is hilarious.

    5. Re:Climate Scientists by barv · · Score: 1

      "Your ridiculous straw-men simply don't hold up to scrutiny".

      That is my response to alarmists. They take one fact (That CO2 has gone from 0.028% to around 0.04%) and have blown it up into total disaster, Your continuation is my response

      "You haven't offered any facts, simply your guesses as to what will happen"

      You know about Dunning Kruger, so accept an ex farmer's knowledge (and peer reviewed opinion) that the latest on Agriculture is that it actually has a net benefit from the fertilizing effect of higher CO2. Accept a travellers observations and history that the people of Holland have made Dykes work very well for hundreds of years. Accept that the scenario that Greenies offer to stop disaster is to take CO2 back to 0.28%, and that achieving that would take our world back to pre industrial levels. A Tax of $100/Kg on Carbon might be a good place to start reducing CO2. (That would mean gasoline at ~$400/gallon. What would that do to food production and deliveries infrastructure?).

      IMHO it is better to save the starving billions by improving their wealth and infrastructure than to tax them into penury so that selfish western Greenies can peer out from their Chelsea Tractors at a natural disaster and blame it on "Deniers".

  12. Scientists also killed the oldest living organism by domulys · · Score: 5, Informative

    507 years is pretty old, but not quite as old as Prometheus : a ~5000 year old tree that was cut down in the 1960's so that it's rings could be counted. At the time of its demise, it was the world's oldest known living organism, and (as far as I know) no older organism is known to exist.

  13. ironic idiocy by dirtyhippie · · Score: 3, Informative

    They killed the animal to measure on the inside, which they thought would be easier, but:

    on the second count, the researchers concentrated on the growth rings on the outside of the shell.

    So, the more precise measurement came from the outside, and they killed the oldest living animal for nothing but stupidity. I sincerely hope that instead of accolades, they get nothing but scorn from their colleagues.

    1. Re:ironic idiocy by TitusGroan8856 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      it was frozen upon collection (standard procedure). So it was already dead when they counted in inside. Do not wish scorn upon others for it may fall upon you.

    2. Re:ironic idiocy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Dumbass. They still fucking killed it. Scorn in your asshole.

    3. Re: ironic idiocy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But they didn't kill it on purpose, fuckface.

      There's a quite a bit of difference between mistakenly killing an interesting specimen that you have no hope of catching and finding said specimen and killing it with malice.

    4. Re: ironic idiocy by TheSeatOfMyPants · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not "by mistake" given they knew freezing clams kills them -- it's premeditated. Whether they were cackling with malicious glee or simply didn't give a shit (which seems disturbingly near-sociopathic) doesn't change that.

      --
      Now mostly at Usenet:comp.misc & SoylentNews.org (it's made of people!)
    5. Re:ironic idiocy by Prune · · Score: 1

      Titus Groan? I see someone else on /. has been reading Gormenghast. :D

      (Prune: short for Prunesquallor)

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    6. Re:ironic idiocy by TitusGroan8856 · · Score: 1

      why not? they are the finniest books in living memory.

    7. Re: ironic idiocy by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 1

      You mean, the same thing fishermen do every day? Bunch of sociopaths with beards and big yellow raincoats..

      --


      He tried to kill me with a forklift!
    8. Re:ironic idiocy by delt0r · · Score: 1

      As opposed to the ones you eat. Where we don't' even check how old they are.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    9. Re: ironic idiocy by mjr167 · · Score: 1

      But it's so delicious!

    10. Re:ironic idiocy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wank off, you PETA-loving bastard. Go firebomb some more medical clinics.

    11. Re:ironic idiocy by JTsyo · · Score: 1

      How so? I would think books published in Finland would surpass it.

    12. Re: ironic idiocy by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      It's a clam. I think it's exaggerating to claim that killing things that are barely aware of their surroundings and tasty is "near-sociopathic."

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    13. Re:ironic idiocy by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Who cares about it being so damned old? What is with peoples' obsession with old shit? Old people? Old people should be executed. Why just last week I had an old people jump in front of me at a buffet, shove me clean out of the way they did. I told them, "Hey, you get back in the line like everyone else!" And they had the guile to complain that they're old and "don't have as much time" and some bullshit. I told them that's all the better reason they should wait their fucking turn, because maybe they'll die before they get there and leave more food for the rest of us.

      If they were clams I would have subjected them to intense heat and butter sauce.

    14. Re: ironic idiocy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, the last time I had a clam bake, I wasn't cackling with malicious glee the whole time. Pity about the age, but seriously, it's a clam.

    15. Re: ironic idiocy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not "by mistake" given they knew freezing clams kills them -- it's premeditated. Whether they were cackling with malicious glee or simply didn't give a shit (which seems disturbingly near-sociopathic) doesn't change that.

      Lack of empathy for a clam is truly frightening.

    16. Re:ironic idiocy by MidnightBrewer · · Score: 1

      I think they're pretty deserving of scorn. Especially when the corrected their findings after using the non-obtrusive method, which they could have done the first time around except that "it would have been hard".

      --
      "Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
  14. rude. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...

  15. Just like the bristlecone pines by pinguwin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There was a scientist who cut down the oldest non-clonal living tree in the world, a bristlecone pine in the White Mountains in California http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus_(tree) It was about 5000 years old. They knew it was old but didn't exactly know how old it was but they sure did when they cut it down. D'oh! Even years later people would meet him and say, "Hey, weren't you the guy who..."

    1. Re:Just like the bristlecone pines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Interesting that it was about 5,000 years old. The young earth theory is looking more credible all the time.

    2. Re:Just like the bristlecone pines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was a scientist who cut down the oldest non-clonal living tree in the world

      More detail here: http://www.terrain.org/essays/14/cohen.htm

    3. Re:Just like the bristlecone pines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But hey, at least he had a warm house! (You know, cause he lives in California?)

    4. Re: Just like the bristlecone pines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conveniently forgetting rocks, fossils and dinosaur bones.

    5. Re:Just like the bristlecone pines by pinguwin · · Score: 1

      Very interesting. Thanks for posting that as it's more thorough than what I've seen before. I saw the bristlecones a few years back and watched the moon rise on comfortable fall evening that was so utterly silent and still, it's hard to believe. I spent two days there taking it all in. Well, thanks for the link!

    6. Re:Just like the bristlecone pines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Care to share the GPS coordinates? ;) Some of these bristlecone groves (there are a few in California) are kept secret by scientists, lest some idiot decide to chop down a several thousand year-old tree for his 15 minutes of fame--or just 15 minutes of evil smirking.

    7. Re:Just like the bristlecone pines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By "more" you mean "less", right?

    8. Re:Just like the bristlecone pines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Sisters are probably older but their age can not be accurately determined.

    9. Re:Just like the bristlecone pines by gmclapp · · Score: 1

      Yes. This is a form of humor commonly referred to as sarcasm.

      --
      Common Sense (+1)
    10. Re:Just like the bristlecone pines by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · · Score: 1

      There's a whole bunch of Clonal plant colonies of great age.

  16. Poor Ming :( by mmontour · · Score: 3, Funny

    That was a merciless thing to do to a clam.

    1. Re:Poor Ming :( by EricTheGreen · · Score: 3, Funny

      Poor thing's life probably flashed before him at the last instant, right?

    2. Re:Poor Ming :( by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      only Flash can save us now =)

    3. Re:Poor Ming :( by oik · · Score: 1

      Very droll :)

    4. Re:Poor Ming :( by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    5. Re:Poor Ming :( by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Only 500 years old. Didn't even get to test one life system.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    6. Re:Poor Ming :( by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Poor thing's life probably flashed before him at the last instant, right?

      His life 'flash'ed right after he was 'gored-on'. (ducks)

    7. Re:Poor Ming :( by mtpaley · · Score: 1

      Opened the shell and killed it in a flash

  17. Re:Scientists also killed the oldest living organi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Clone

  18. Re:Scientists also killed the oldest living organi by mirix · · Score: 1

    Trees can't spit, though.

    --
    Sent from my PDP-11
  19. Schrodinger's clam by wwalker · · Score: 5, Funny

    And they call themselves scientists?! How do they know that the clam wasn't already dead when they opened the box... erhm, I mean the shell?

  20. Queen's vagina by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you've got to give that clam some air once in awhile!

  21. For the science! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Science never gets wrong or makes an error, you insensitive clod.

  22. Re:Scientists also killed the oldest living organi by JustOK · · Score: 2

    They can drip sap on you and yours. Trees have been known to work closely with birds, producing something that rhymes with spit. Don't think for one second that trees are harmless.

    --
    rewriting history since 2109
  23. Re:Scientists also killed the oldest living organi by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 3, Interesting
    --
    Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
  24. But what did it taste like? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tough as old boots, or like a fine vintage wine?

    We need to be told.

  25. This Clam shall be immortalized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    by the new FOSS operating system, MING (MING Is Not GNU)

  26. "When the rockets go up.... by EricTheGreen · · Score: 1

    ....who cares where they come down? That's not my department." says Wernher Von Braun.

    (ok, not exactly the same scientific disciplines here, for sure....but the mindset is certainly close enough.)

    1. Re:"When the rockets go up.... by eyenot · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Werner von Braun said those words because he built rockets for the fucking Nazis, rockets that rained on London mercilessly. Then, after the American fathers of rocketry were all hunted down by the American Gestapo during WWII, von Braun was brought to America to take the credit as "the American father of rocketry". When all along he had been a fucking Nazi and didn't care at all about making a rocket specifically to fall on London with an explosive payload. You stupid sack of shit.

      --
      "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
    2. Re:"When the rockets go up.... by schnell · · Score: 4, Informative

      Werner von Braun said those words

      No, he didn't. That was the brilliant mathematician, comedian and pianist Tom Lehrer putting words into von Braun's mouth.

      That doesn't necessarily discount your assertions about von Braun's complicity with the Nazi regime, but you should know better than to call someone a "stupid sack of shit" based off a (pretty obviously) fake quote that was meant as a joke.

      --
      "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
    3. Re:"When the rockets go up.... by cusco · · Score: 1

      Von Braun joined the Nazi party for the simple reason that anyone who expected to get funding for research had to join. In the 1950s and '60s anyone who wanted funding to do atomic research had to work for the Pentagon or the Kremlin.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    4. Re:"When the rockets go up.... by stud9920 · · Score: 1

      ...and additionally the logistics behind the V-2 was an economic catastrophe that cost way more to the German war effort than to the British morale.

    5. Re:"When the rockets go up.... by bob_super · · Score: 1

      There are thousands of people who essentially follow this principle every day.
      They design or build weapons, and let someone else take responsibility for their use.

    6. Re:"When the rockets go up.... by EricTheGreen · · Score: 1

      "Some have harsh words for this man of renown,
      But some think our attitude
      Should be one of gratitude,
      Like the widows and cripples in old London town
      Who owe their large pensions to Wernher von Braun."

    7. Re:"When the rockets go up.... by eyenot · · Score: 1

      von Braun could have left Nazi Germany and found himself in America which was progressing in rocketry just as fast as Germany was, and in the private sector, thanks to John Whiteside Parsons and Frank Malina. Names you won't hear often since the US government decided it was more important to award credit for fathering rocketry to a fucking Nazi psychopath than to two honest, hard-working Americans with strongly humanitarian moral convictions. Hope you rest in your deluxe Hell, you apologetic sympathizer. At least JPL was just getting planes off the ground faster. Your little fucked-up hero of your fucked-up wet dreams was just a psychotic tinkerer who gleefully threw himself at the task of decimating populations. Unless you're the sort of person who can live up to and own up to that FACT, why don't you just go hide your face in shame from yourself. Don't even bother to look in a mirror.

      --
      "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
    8. Re:"When the rockets go up.... by eyenot · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile, in the U.S., Jack Parsons struck upon the genius of casting rocket fuel from asphalt, and actually advanced rocketry to an entirely new stage. Whereas von Braun simply tinkered and toyed and more or less stole information from other people all the way to the top of the evil Nazi ladder and found funding for impractical designs.

      Here in the U.S., JPL was the long-term result of young men hoping to more or less get to the moon. They begrudgingly improved rocketry for the sake of propelling airplanes under a military budget.

      And this clown (counter-comment to the parent) excuses von Braun, his V2, and the disappearance of Parsons and Malina from history with the weak conviction that "the Nazis had all the money in Germany".

      That's the result of the subversion of history. Numbskulls.

      I actually live near the Air Zoo in Kalamazoo and I'm trying to get them to put Parsons into their rocketry hall of fame, where von Braun is credited is the father of American rocketry. What a fucking mishap to dwarf even the explosions that once rocked the campus of the Suicide Squad.

      --
      "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
    9. Re:"When the rockets go up.... by eyenot · · Score: 1

      What does it matter? The quote reflects von Braun's mentality exactly, whether it was meant as a joke by someone else or not. So, considering that we can't all expect to be acquainted with the obscure and probably fucked-up history of the facts of sarcastic comedy and its occasional foray into making an impression on some people, maybe you could backpedal and accept two things:

      1.) Who cares? von Braun was a Nazi piece of shit, I stated my case and some other asshole's sarcasm can't impact any of those FACTS, at all, whatsoever

      2.) The person who used the quote is arguably a stupider sack of shit than I am, for off-handedly throwing out a quote that they didn't even fact-check, first. All I was doing was shooting the very source of the quote in preference of never hearing anything from his Nazi cocksucker ever again, period. It's not like I was made any stupider by exposure to the numbskull's pendantic mis-quote, considering I rejecting the inclusion of the mis-quoted figure in entirety into the conversation, roundly and soundly.

      P.S. to Hell with Nazis. Americans who actually made real advances in rocketry are going forgotten and von Braun is given their credit. von Braun was not only just a Nazi, but his contributions to rocketry included gathering data from actual researchers and pioneers, making simple extrapolations, and unimaginatively using the Nazi war machine to fund what is basically a seventeen-foot toddler, while simultaneously in America rocketry was finally advancing into its adolescence.

      I understand you wanting to point out that I was reacting to a mis-quote, but you can't seriously disgruntle the fact that the person who mis-quoted IS a stupid sack of shit just as I said.

      --
      "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
    10. Re:"When the rockets go up.... by eyenot · · Score: 1

      Again:

      You Stupid,
      Sardonic,
      Sack of Shit.
      -- Satan.

      --
      "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
    11. Re:"When the rockets go up.... by cusco · · Score: 1

      America which was progressing in rocketry just as fast as Germany

      Yes, which is why American rockets were targeting Berlin from England by the end of the war. Oh, wait, no they weren't. To claim that rocketry was progressing as fast in the US as in Germany you'd have to pretend that Goddard was getting adequate financing, which was so far from the truth as to be laughable. His experiments were ignored by the Pentagon until well after his death, although the German, Soviet, French and British rocketry associations were very enthusiastic about them. By the beginning of WWII rocketry in the Soviet Union was actually ahead of the US.

      Never been able to figure out why Parsons is considered important by some. Solid fuel rockets were well understood by the War of 1812, all I can tell that he did is add an inferior copy of Goddard's guidance system.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  27. How many? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many clam years is 507?

    1. Re:How many? by bob_super · · Score: 1

      I'm just hoping that, like Jeanne Calment, she had sold her shell for a Life Annuity to her lawyer.

    2. Re:How many? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1

  28. This is the same magical clam that saved Peter G.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Considering how old this clam is, it has been around for longer than the creation of the US itself. I think that this is the same clam that saved Peter Griffin and never shut up. I think the reason they killed it was because they got tired of hearing it talk. Or do I have the characters mixed up?

  29. Just imagine if the clam had a GoPro camera by Glooko_Archive · · Score: 1

    I would have loved to see how things changed over time/

    1. Re:Just imagine if the clam had a GoPro camera by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 1

      Mud, mud mud.. it's a f'ing filter feeding bivalve.

      --


      He tried to kill me with a forklift!
  30. death was an act of mercy by ClassicASP · · Score: 1

    poor clam grew old enough to watch it friends, parents, family and entire generation die off leaving it alone yet around to become a great great great great great great.....(insert more greats) grandparent, and then as a final anticlimax it was taken from its natural habitat and killed to satiate the curiosities of a few whitecoats in the name of science. humans are inumane. shame on them! at least the clam didn't have to live to endure having the the makeup industry test its cosmetic products on it like the poor piglets.

  31. Radiocarbon? by JBMcB · · Score: 1

    Couldn't they have chipped off a tiny piece of it's shell and used radiocarbon dating?

    --
    My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    1. Re:Radiocarbon? by Oronar · · Score: 2

      I'm pretty sure that radiocarbon dating only helps you figure out how long ago an organism (or piece) died. When it's living it's taking in C14 and C12 from the environment. Once it's dead and stops taking in carbon you can compare the ratio of C14 left to the C12.

      --
      1 4/\/\ 1337
    2. Re:Radiocarbon? by kanweg · · Score: 2

      Radiocarbon dating relies on fresh 14C being generated (high up) in the atmosphere by solar radiation. It mixes due to air turbulence, so plants have a substantially constant supply of it. The exchange of 14C carbon with carbon below the surface of water is poor. There, plant/animal stuff eaten also results in CO2 but it is absorbed by algae again. So it is recycled there, and doesn't have the good mixing and constant supply like in the atmosphere. So, scientists know: You can't do radiocarbon dating using material that grew in or under water. (Liars for religion use examples like radiocarbon dating a freshly caught fish to be hundreds of years old as evidence that radiocarbon dating is unreliable and proof that their favorite myth book is correct. Sigh). So, no radiocarbon dating on the clam wouldn't work.

      Bert

    3. Re:Radiocarbon? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that radiocarbon dating only helps you figure out how long ago an organism (or piece) died.

      Yes, but the shell is essentially dead. It's basically a chunk of mineral laid down by the clam. Shame it died, but the fuss is because it's been checked. How many older ones have been kiled and eaten without ever being tested I wonder.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  32. A Clams life that reminds me of heaven by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously happy with it's situation to live for over 500+ years, or no wrist to cut.

    Christian's heaven, where one meets with their family, long gone dog's and cat's for eternity.
    There's a point where total bliss and being with the same people would get a bit old,
    500 years of that there would have to be some out.

    Islams heaven is.. well only so long they stay virgins and hand fed grapes has got to
    get old, again 500 years of that there has to be an out.

    I asked a friend of mine an Aleut from Alaska what their after life was, he said the belief is to come back as
    Eagles, Moose, whatever (Animism); now that has it's own out as it's a normal life span of that animal then another go.

    Stuck as a Clam the happiest day of it's life after 507 years could of very well have been when it was slit with a knife.

    1. Re:A Clams life that reminds me of heaven by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I was a child, I thought the lives of adults were miserably boring. They didn't watch cartoons or play with toys. Now that I'm an adult, I see all of the things I'm doing as hobbies, and all of the things I want to do, even though I occasionally still watch cartoons. Once I'm in heaven, with God who can make wondrous new things (even new laws of physics), there will be an infinite variety of things to do. Of course, I will probably spend a lot of time singing praises to Him because He's truly awesome.

  33. 500 years later by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://xkcd.com/889/

  34. In A Related Story by Greyfox · · Score: 3, Funny

    He was delicious.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:In A Related Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this was scarcely odd because...

      Captcha: tidally

  35. This... is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sewious!

    1. Re:This... is... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Wonder Pets!

  36. And the anti-science spin continues by bledri · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's a type of clam known to live extremely long lives that people are studying to understand aging. It was part of a haul of clams caught on a field trip of Bangor University’s School of Ocean Sciences. And it's a clam. You know, one of those things we catch and eat by the millions every year without shedding a tear.

    But God forbid a scientist kills one and actually learns something. And since one of the many things we might learn is how the climate has changed over the last 500 years, we get to blame climate science.

    In summary:

    • Over Fishing entire species to near extinction: Fine.
    • Kill one clam that turns out to be really old add to our understanding of the oceans and climate: Evil, arrogant, and self-centered!

    WTF?

    --
    Some privacy policy Slashdot.
    1. Re:And the anti-science spin continues by Boronx · · Score: 1

      money

    2. Re:And the anti-science spin continues by sackvillian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In summary: Over Fishing entire species to near extinction: Fine. Kill one clam that turns out to be really old add to our understanding of the oceans and climate: Evil, arrogant, and self-centered! WTF?

      Ever notice how much efforts police will make to safely sedate and transport a cow that's loose on the highway? Even one that was heading (and will continue to head) to a slaughterhouse?

      The reality is that the vast majority of people are not comfortable with killing animals and simply can't handle the idea -- let alone the sight! -- of it. Just the information given on this clam in TFA is enough to rouse people's sympathy and make its death seem tragic. But, as is true for war, the idea of millions of something dying is incomprehensible and therefore inconsequential. Especially if the dying is out of sight and out of mind.

      It's for this reason that I can understand and respect the perspectives of hunters and vegetarians alike. But it's quite sad when people can't face the reality of their own actions.

      --
      Hey mate, spare a sig?
    3. Re:And the anti-science spin continues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In summary:

      • Over Fishing entire species to near extinction: Fine.

      No, *not* fine.

      • Kill one clam that turns out to be really old add to our understanding of the oceans and climate: Evil, arrogant, and self-centered!

      Yes

      WTF?

      There is *no* WTF.

    4. Re:And the anti-science spin continues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was no good reason to kill the clam. Killing something just to see how old it is is not science, and nothing valuable was learned from it.

    5. Re:And the anti-science spin continues by Mashdar · · Score: 1

      It's okay. PETA only blows up labs over cute animals.

    6. Re:And the anti-science spin continues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was no good reason to kill the clam. Killing something just to see how old it is is not science, and nothing valuable was learned from it.

      Would it then have been okay if, after determining its age, they breaded, fried and ate it?

    7. Re:And the anti-science spin continues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank His Noodliness for some clarity. Only took me scrolling past 2/3s of the page full of bullshit.

      I wonder where I can get some good clam soup for dinner.

      - Velex

    8. Re:And the anti-science spin continues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it would have been. This is what the UN has determined is the ethical way to study marine animals. This is why Japan has to actually do something with the whales they kill, instead of just killing them for the sake of killing them.

    9. Re:And the anti-science spin continues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you seriously fucking implying that the UN is the arbiter of what is or is not ethical?

  37. "Happy" as a clam? by eyenot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A clam's entire sensory apparatus is very simplistic compared to what you experience as a human being.

    For a clam, there isn't much sensory input. A basic aspect of its life is completely cutting itself off from the outside world.

    Its life was a repetitive series of shell openings and closings. The flavor of various things floating in told it whether to intake or expel seawater. The threats of various predators told it whether to shut very quickly or to stay a bit open for the purpose of expelling seawater.

    Its internal organs were probably healthy. It likely had no recollection of the ups and downs of pains and aches. Things we're used to as human beings, that we even use to mark turning points in our lives.

    It likely had no sense of the world's existence beyond the approach of sustenance or poison, the clamoring of various threats, and the terrain of whatever was immediately behind it (toward the hinge of the shell). It would be a stretch to consider it to be a sentient being, or one possessing self-awareness.

    Even its reproductive cycles were involuntary spurts of either eggs or sperms, just released blindly into the water based on temperature and food supply.

    The "happiness" of a clam is entirely due to the low margin for error inherent in a system with truly very few variables.

    --
    "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
    1. Re:"Happy" as a clam? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It likely had no sense of the world's existence beyond the approach of sustenance or poison, the clamoring of various threats, and the terrain of whatever was immediately behind it (toward the hinge of the shell). It would be a stretch to consider it to be a sentient being, or one possessing self-awareness.

      Sounds like most people.

    2. Re:"Happy" as a clam? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      animals are living creatures, dude. even clams have basic human rights

    3. Re:"Happy" as a clam? by koolguy442 · · Score: 1

      If ignorance is bliss, then a clam can be quite happy.

    4. Re:"Happy" as a clam? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For a clam, there isn't much sensory input. A basic aspect of its life is completely cutting itself off from the outside world.

      So it was a Slashdot reader?

  38. How'd it taste? by bhlowe · · Score: 1

    I bet with a little white wine sauce, it would still be pretty tasty. Polish it off with a little chardonnay.

    1. Re:How'd it taste? by Onthax · · Score: 1

      Could be expensive to find a 501 year old wine to match

  39. Impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been assured by the esteemed physicists of Slashdot that entropy means atoms can only make things that live 100 years at most.

  40. Re:Time to do some testing on clam killers ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    What kind of asshole kills something just to check its age ?

    The kind of asshole who doesn't deserve to live.

    Poe's Law may be relevant here

    But it's worth noting that these clams are fished commercially:

    People do eat quahogs, although this is more common in North America, Iceland and Norway than in the UK. Commercial fisheries for the bivalve suddenly increased enormously in the mid-1970s, and have remained at those levels ever since.

    As a vegetarian scientist, I'm actually a bit uncomfortable with field expeditions to collect (and kill) scientific specimens. But in this case, the scientists may actually be saving far more of these clams (e.g. from commerical fishing) than they are killing themselves - by raising awareness of the age of these clams.

  41. Re:Time to do some testing on clam killers ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a vegetarian, how do you feel about eating still living fresh vegetables?

  42. It's a clam, folks by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Odds are there are 1000s more around the same age or older, sucking dirty water somewhere else out there.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    1. Re:It's a clam, folks by bob_super · · Score: 1

      Nothing that a well-placed oil spill can't take care off.
      I'm tired of old clams leeching on the system forever and threatening my social security payments! Don't tell me he had taken an early retirement at 50!

    2. Re:It's a clam, folks by sshir · · Score: 1

      Actually, depending on how many clams were examined (and other things), odds of 1000s of similar age clams still out there might not be all that good.

      There is a cool statistical result known as German tank problem

  43. O_O by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    some people here have brains evolvoved as much as the one of a clam!

  44. Do clams die of old age? by Kwyj1b0 · · Score: 1

    I was wondering - why did this clam live to a ripe old age? Can all clams live for centuries if they aren't killed by chance (predators, starvation, what-have-you)? Or are clams like most animals in that they grow old and eventually die, even in the best of environments, but it is a really slow process (i.e. like how 20 years to a dog might be 70 years to a human?)

    Also, what is it about underwater life that many of the underwater creatures live so long: Maximum life span in animals?

    1. Re:Do clams die of old age? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fitness? One proposed mechanism for death is to increase the survival odds of descendants. Of course, age has its benefits, and there are other variables involved (food scarcity, predation, mutation load, etc), and so the average age of an animal arguably would be found at some equilibrium of all these parameters.

      For some animals there's little-to-no benefit to descendants if the parents expire prematurely, so there's no pressure for suicide.

      But I'm not a biologist. I simply read The Selfish Gene, which I _highly_ recommend, because it's a seminal book on genetic biology, quite accessible to lay audiences, and also a fun read. And it supplements Wikipedia nicely--which has plenty of material critical of some theories in the book, as well as explications.

    2. Re:Do clams die of old age? by u38cg · · Score: 1

      Many animals have the interesting property that their mortality rates level off or decline after a certain age. In human terms, that's equivalent to people in their 80s dying off at the rate of 40 year olds, and carrying on indefinitely (which would give at current UK mortality rates an expectation of remaining life of around 600 years).

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
  45. One thing we learned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The longer you can keep your mouth shut, the longer you'll live.

  46. Re:Time to do some testing on clam killers ... by myowntrueself · · Score: 4, Funny

    As a vegetarian, how do you feel about eating still living fresh vegetables?

    True extremist vegans eat only inorganic food, made of metal and stone.

    --
    In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  47. True but not true by mha · · Score: 1

    People in the past have happily killed animals. The only reason your statement is true is because people have not had to kill an animal themselves. Even the pet is killed ("put down") by the vet and not the owner. If the people would no longer have access to supermarket meat but only to (live) cows on pasture and living chickens, it would not take years before they decided that killing them for the meat to EAT is better than trying to become a vegetarian for most people.

    By the way, the "sanctity of life" is a HUMAN invention. There is nothing in nature that hints to such a thing. Life throws away 90+% of life very early, before anything grows up. It's nature's QA process: instead of trying to perfect the production process, just mass-produce WAY more than needed and then throw away 90% of it.

    I'm not saying we have to live by that, not at all! We received a brain so what we do with it is all up to us. I think we may even not have to worry about hindering natural selection in those species we deem important enough to prevent all this mass-death (ourselves first of all). We have computers and science, at some point (very soon - in nature terms) we'll be able to do much or all (or even better) than nature does by simulating selection and using the results to improve our genes, maybe even in the living organism (where there are trillions of cells all with their own copy of the DNA so that's a challenge to change them all, or at least the relevant ones in relevant places). And someday hopefully we'll be able to grow not the animal but just its meat.

    1. Re:True but not true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sanctity of life may be formally a human invention, but I've seen plenty of real examples of predatory animals taking on the young of other species, even prey, and nursing them. You can find examples on YouTube even. I've also seen a horse go out of its way to deliberately kill a young horse that was pretty far from challenging it in any way. There's enough chaos in animal behavior that we can't blanketly write off the notion that animals can take an interest in saving the lives of other animals.

      Also, the seeming hypocrisy about being upset over killing an old clam versus eating millions of clams is silly. First, people very rarely eat old animals, especially seafood. There are some cultural exceptions like a proper coq au vin, but we don't go really really old. There is a preference for large spawns of young fish. They're easier to obtain in larger numbers. The clams I buy aren't old. I've never bought a very old clam, and I've bought directly from the source. Fishing done right doesn't have to be genocide. Many fisherman think about these issues, they're not stupid. Finally, we accept killing something for food. That's survival. We have ethical troubles with the idea of just killing things out of curiosity.

    2. Re:True but not true by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Why don't we execute old people too? I mean it's like... grandma is old... she shits her diaper a lot... she can't remember any of her kids... you know, when my dog started pissing on the floor because his bladder was failing, we gassed it with sulfur dioxide until it died, then put it in a bag and dumped it in a dumpster. Grandma is expensive and way worse off than my dog was. Why don't we relieve the burden on the taxpayer?

  48. Better kill a younger one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I understand the uniqueness, but isn't it better to kill something that had more than enough life already, rather than something that didn't have the chance to live so much?
    Seriously, we routinely kill and consume clams by the millions.

  49. I don't understand.... by mark-t · · Score: 1

    How is killing something that was alive just to find out how old it is a good thing? I mean, certainly they must have known that opening it was going to, or was certainly very liable to kill it, so really, it seems to me like they just went and killed it just because they were curious.

    I mean, I know it was just clam, but this still somehow seems so full of stupid that I have no words for it.

    There could be life forms as far advanced beyond ourselves as we are beyond the clam elsewhere in this universe, and somehow I think that we'd find it rather morally objectionable if one of them decided just go and off an exceptional one of us simply because they happened to be able to, and were idly curious about some aspect of our biology.

    1. Re:I don't understand.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I mean, I know it was just clam, but this still somehow seems so full of stupid that I have no words for it.

      Yeah, but then again... it's a clam. It sat there on the ocean floor for 500 years doing WHAT, exactly? What is a clam's "quality of life"?

      I agree that we should just leave things alone if possible. This clam should have been allowed to sit there for another 500 years living out the clam equivalent of "the good life."

    2. Re:I don't understand.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Opening it wasn't what killed it; that's just a bad article.

      The clams get pulled up when they're dredging - then get frozen and distributed to researchers so as not to waste them. If the clam wasn't already dead from the shock of being dredged up, freezing it would have been what killed it.

      In other words, it was dead before the scientists even got a look-in.

    3. Re:I don't understand.... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      It just seemed so ... senseless. Killing something just to find out how old it is strikes me as somehow ... wrong. Just wrong.

    4. Re:I don't understand.... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      There could be life forms as far advanced beyond ourselves as we are beyond the clam elsewhere in this universe

      They did this on Stargate, where aliens argued they were so advanced that we were to them as cattle are to us. The obvious counter-argument is that a cow cannot competently verbally spar with me, it has no sapience, etc. If you were to "learn the language of cows", you would be able to communicate exactly as well as you can with a dog, or less--dogs don't understand human speech, more body language cues and the occasional grunt (that's why they pick up on certain words, but can't understand long and complex sentences).

      You might not be able to understand wtf aliens are talking about, but you can sure hold a conversation with one. It would be bland for them. Our level of evolution is not the end of all evolution, but it's pretty fucking high up there: we can comprehend math and logic.

  50. The Man Eating Clams Are Upon Us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dark Souls tried to warn us!

  51. Take that! by TheMiddleRoad · · Score: 1

    Hah! FUCK YOU, CLAM!

  52. Re:Scientists also killed the oldest living organi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Destroyed for science is one thing but this one was destroyed by a meth addict.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senator_%28tree%29

  53. Re:Time to do some testing on clam killers ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I think there was a Mineralism movement a little while ago... Salt and water is all they worked out that they could eat, until they hatched upon the idea that herbivores who murdered plants forfeited their right to life and could therefore be morally killed and eaten (carnovires of course are fellow justice-seekers and so can't be eaten).

    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.math/MJQR1qzWt-U/UpPyP4FYcF4J

  54. Morons by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Do we have to kill everything just to satisfy our curiosity?

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  55. Bastards by Lucky_Pierre · · Score: 1

    There he was, happy as clam...........

    --
    "Whenever the cause of the people is entrusted to professors, it is lost." ~ V.I. Lenin
  56. Clamy clam clam! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Leave your girlfriend out of this.

  57. Who knows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who knew that clams could get to that age (before Ming was examined)?
    Was it the oldest, really? Or are there still older clams, or whatever, on the bottom of the sea?
    How many of those older have been killed by predators, fishers, oil drillers or scuba divers? With the big difference that we will _never_ know of those.

    Thanks to Ming and Science, we all now _know_. Isn't that much better than a shell sitting on someone's desk? or crushed at the bottom of the sea?

  58. Re:Time to do some testing on clam killers ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a vegetarian, how do you feel about eating still living fresh vegetables?

    Some things are totally and completely blue and some other things are not even slightly blue at all. But then other things are mostly some other color besides blue but have a few bits and pieces that are blue. And then other things are a slightly bluish shade of some other color.

    Life/aliveness is like the color blue. Some things are very alive and other things are not alive at all. But then some things are alive in one way but not in another. Life/aliveness is a multidimensional continuum.

    Human-ness is also a multidimensional continuum. Some things are more human in one way. And other things are less human in another way.

    At a simple level, one could adopt the priniciple that the more something is similar to living human, the less one should be inclined to (kill and) eat it. But different people are going to draw that line at different places depending on their values - and on how hungry they are.

    And why shouldn't we eat people? I would say that a lot of it comes down to respecting the fact that people don't want to be eaten. So, more generally, one could try to avoid eating things that are sophisticated enough to know that they don't want to be eaten.

    But clams are an interesting case. They're animals. But they're probably not sophisticated enough to know they don't want to be eaten. And what about a 500 year old clam? The clam itself probably isn't capable of having an opinion. But there are a significant number of humans who would not want to see it killed and eaten.

    For me personally, I see a world where the strong exploit the weak - not because they should but simply because they can. And, to the extent that it's convenient, I don't want to be part of that. So not eating meat is one way I can avoid expoiting the weak (or, more specifically, things that are weak but also sophisticated enough to know at some level that they don't want to be exploited).

  59. Ming the Aphrodisiac King by Sarusa · · Score: 1

    Since the Chinese formula is rarity + cost = raging boners, I sure hope they ground this guy up into aphrodisiac powder and saved a couple tigers or black rhinos.

  60. Re:Time to do some testing on clam killers ... by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I think there was a Mineralism movement a little while ago... Salt and water is all they worked out that they could eat, until they hatched upon the idea that herbivores who murdered plants forfeited their right to life and could therefore be morally killed and eaten (carnovires of course are fellow justice-seekers and so can't be eaten).

    https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.math/MJQR1qzWt-U/UpPyP4FYcF4J

    I think some people eat clays, but of course thats formed from the corpses of diatoms so probably not allowed.

    --
    In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  61. I know what the scientists were thinking by revelation60 · · Score: 2

    Death to Ming!

  62. Re:Scientists also killed the oldest living organi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a waste. They should have X-RAY-ed it, or non-destructively checked.

  63. Scaling up Quantum Physics by Port-0 · · Score: 1

    It seems the observation changed the state of the clam. This has to be some sort of break through in applying quantum physics to a larger set of particles.

  64. The Story is Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He survived the cavity search by the TSA. (No Pearl found) The water boarding by the NSA and FBI is what killed him.

  65. Re:Scientists also killed the oldest living organi by RuffMasterD · · Score: 1

    Don't think for one second that trees are harmless.

    True. I was on a field trip in the army once when a tree dropped a whole branch on this dude. Left a stick poking out the side of his head like an antenna. A medic came over and gave it a flick, then realised it was pretty well stuck. We all thought it went through his skull. No one told the poor guy that of course so he wouldn't freak out. Luckily for him the stick went no further than his skull and didn't do any permanent damage. Threes are savage.

    --
    Human Rights, Article 12: Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence
  66. Fucking Climate Propagandists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Going around killing animals pushing their bullshit space fairy agenda.

  67. Ergo: biology and climate aren't sciences ... by fygment · · Score: 1

    ... just clever guys hacking around, having fun exploring. The sciences are those based on rigorous mathematics applied by those who deeply understand those mathematics (yes, that excludes climatologists).

    A lot of the pseudo-sciences also have a weak grasp of technology; do you really have to kill everything you study? Yes, say biologists, medical researchers, etc.

     

    --
    "Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
  68. Quantum clam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not quite. It was either alive or dead, and thus was a combination of quantum states. Opening it collapsed the clam's wavefunction. Quantum mechanics colloquially refer to this as a "clam state".

  69. Re:Scientists also killed the oldest living organi by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    The article is not very good.
    The ring is OLD. But the plants from which the ring is formed regulary die and get replaced by new "clones" or scions. So the plants are rather young.

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  70. Re:"Happy" as the ignorant by fygment · · Score: 1

    Interesting as your assumption is that richness of experience is only determined by _your_ sensory level of sensory input. But you use the word "likely" a lot. You simply don't know what is going on at the clam's sensory level; you don't know what it feels, and you certainly don't know for certain that it is a purely reactive system operating on an involuntary level. That is simply and completely what you assume from the observations of people ('scientists') who began their investigations with that very assumption i.e. 'biologists' - pseudo scientists who believe all other life-forms are simply automatons, wonderful organic machines.

    What you can say is: the organism survived for hundreds of years in its environment until someone killed it to see how long it had been doing so. The value of the observation is dubious. The act illustrates the limited intellectual capacity of the 'scientists' in the field who clearly could not concieve of an alternative methodology.

    --
    "Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
  71. Re:Scientists also killed the oldest living organi by laejoh · · Score: 1

    I suddenly have to think about rule 34 of the internet!

  72. Re:Scientists also killed the oldest living organi by Mashdar · · Score: 1

    Prometheus was cut down for no good reason by a clueless grad student. He had no justification in cutting down the tree, no proper permit, and it was opposed to standard practice. It was just some goofy kid playing Paul Bunyan. Bad science is bad.

    Prometheus was older than Methuselah at the time, but Methuselah is now older than Prometheus was when it was killed. An even older tree was found in 2013.

  73. Re:Scientists also killed the oldest living organi by Megane · · Score: 1
    --
    #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  74. Re:Scientists also killed the oldest living organi by omnichad · · Score: 1

    If you're going to claim no older organism is known to exist, you probably should at least read the article you linked to. They discovered an older tree last year.

    In 2012 a bristlecone pine in California's White Mountains was measured by Tom Harlan to be 5062 years old,[4] making it the oldest known tree in North America and the oldest known individual tree in the world.

  75. Attack of the Killer Clams! by Rambo+Tribble · · Score: 1

    Oh, wait, I may have that turned around ...

  76. Every mistake by sesshomaru · · Score: 1

    But there's no sense crying over every mistake.
    You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.
    And the Science gets done.
    And you make a neat gun.
    For the people who are still alive.

    --
    "MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
  77. Climate research by Dr+La · · Score: 2

    What was the point of examining this individual animal?

    It was part of research into climate change over the past 1000 years. The oxygen isotopes in carbonates in clam shells provide information about climate at the time the shell layer was formed. See: http://www.bangor.ac.uk/news/full.php.en?nid=16781&tnid=0

    --
    Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam esse
  78. Re:Scientists also killed the oldest living organi by JTsyo · · Score: 1

    How about seven? It's a cannibal.

  79. How silly of me by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

    I was actually assuming the summary was accurate.

    --
    Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  80. parallels by NikeHerc · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, by opening the clam which scientists refer to as 'Ming,' they killed it instantly.

    I see parallels with obamacare.

    --
    Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
  81. Does L. Ron Hubbard Know about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's xenu with you?

  82. Re:"Happy" as the ignorant by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

    Yeah dude. Animals have souls, that makes them alive. The lack of a neural network capable of processing self-awareness doesn't make them incapable. It's like how trees feel pain and get scared and want to hug their mommy. The Lorax should speak for the clams, too.

  83. Oops :) by tibit · · Score: 1

    Reminds me of the Oops RadioLab episode where they talk with a guy that killed the oldest thus-far-known tree on Earth (4000+ years old, and yes, that's thousands).

    --
    A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  84. What... by moerre · · Score: 1

    ...does THAT have to do with the post you replied to? Just needing to vent some frustration this fine evening, are we?

    1. Re:What... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Well it's the same reasoning behind executing the dog... vet costs are too high, throw it away. It's the same logic for getting a new car over a current aging one, though usually a new car has a premium that's way more than just fixing up your car (you buy a $20,000 econoshitbox, it loses $6000 in value as soon as you drive off the lot, and eats $5000 in maintenance in the first 2 years... $1500 replaces a transmission and $2500 replaces or rebuilds an engine, so like $4000 is a way better deal here and leaves plenty of room to redo the suspension or something).

  85. Re:"Happy" as the ignorant by eyenot · · Score: 1

    Perhaps you, then, are more in tune with what goes on at a clam's sensory level. That much is obvious.

    --
    "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
  86. Remember Vietnam? by bareshiyth · · Score: 1

    Remember the line (the accuracy/bonafides of which are still questioned) "We had to destroy the village in order to save it."? It was hailed as symbolizing the absurdity that the war had become. Certainly applies somewhat to some of the absurdities some scientists will go to as well, huh?

  87. Clam-gate, Part Deux... by SternisheFan · · Score: 1
    This link was submitted as a followup story, in case it doesn't get picked...

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/11/131116-oldest-clam-dead-ming-science-ocean-507/

  88. "Ming was 507 years old at the time of its murder" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fixed that for you.