There is one potentially interesting variation on the theme of life that is possible - chirality. All life on Earth is based on left-handed protiens, instead of right-handed. And nobody really knows why, because right-handed would be possible, but chemically, might be a bit different.
No, that whole satellite imagery thing was just plain silly.
First off, the satellite is travelling at thousands of miles per hour (relative to the ground), so the shot where they couldn't see Brill's face, because they were directly overhead was stupid, stupid, stupid. None of it was even remotely possible.
Some people want all fission technology banned. There are reasons of fear of accidents. Fear of storage of waste. Fear of terrorism. You can argue away all of these, and others can argue them right back.
one thing nobody can refute, because it has so plainly been demonstrated over the past 50 years of human history:
The effect on the political global climate, when a country HAS a nuclear weapon, and has demonstrated that they are not afraid to use it.
THe dome (called a sarcophagus) was built with cracks to allow heat to escape. (wild birds routinely fly in and out of the structure through these cracks, water seeps in and down to the water table).
Perhaps the world's greatest experts on control of leakage of radiation into the environment are the brave men and women at Battelle at the Pacific Northwest Laboratories (in Hanford, WA). They are in charge of the cleanup/ damage control at Hanford, and also, they're aiding the Ukranians with Chernyobl. They will be monitoring this, and working on it for at least another 100 years.
I wouldn't call for the elimination of fission because of the possibility for accidents (however, no matter how smug you are about your design, an accident can and will happen. Remember; the titanic was unsinkable).
My worry is the disposal of waste. I think most people see that as a problem. The US has NO policy for the permanent disposal of nuclear waste, therefore, it's all piling up AT the plants sites themselves. Precisely where it was NOT supposed to be stored long-term.
Seeing as how this stuff is lethal for periods of time much longer than humanity has even existed as a SPECIES let alone a civilization, and seeing as how the OLDEST structures we've ever created are only thousands of years old, and already crumbling (granted, construction technology has advanced since then), and given that utilities have a huge potential to make tons of money on making power, but no financial incentive to do it safely - why SHOULD I trust nuclear power?
Personally, if we could just launch it into the sun, or reprocess it into harmlessness, I would accept a sodium-moderated reactor in my neighborhood. (I currently live near Diablo Canyon, which is in a Geologically unstable region, I've toured the plant, and the structural earthquake reinforcements were very impressive. Their backup plan for cooling the reactor in the event of a power-loss was NOT impressive. Three days worth of diesel fuel on site for diesel pumps, and then, a "guaranteed" contract with a local fuel supplier? yeah, that'll work in a war-situation, or severe earthquake.)
You can simply shut down a coal plant. Or even a sodium moderated plant (provided it's not damaged by disaster, terrorists, or collateral damage in a war). But current plants require continued effort to keep the cores cooled after they're shut down. And that's all reliant on the existence of a modern supply infrastructure, which can all disappear in a disaster or a war.
It was maybe 10 years ago, but I remember reading about teams that sent in radio-controled camera robots to scope things out, and they didn't last long. A few hours in that environment tended to fry the electronics. (not just the radiation, but the physical heat being emitted - this stuff isn't just "hot", it's also literally hot)
you can drink water from a well within 100 feet of a coal-burning plant.
If you drink water from a well within 100 feet of Cherney-baby, you'll get Sr90, and bone cancer. Cheer up. You can safely drink there in about a million years.
The ironic thing here, is that this is one of the central tennants of Christianity.
Nobody is perfect. Everyone is a sinner. And therefore - nobody has a right to judge anybody, and if you do notice that another person has made a mistake, you better forgive them.
I agree, the world WOULD be a better place if everybody would accept these facts. Jeez, that Jesus guy was smart!
Unfortunately, Christianity's strongest proponents seem to have missed the point.
Re:Holy shit! This guy has the same lame idea I do
on
The Encryption Wars
·
· Score: 2
moron.
Nobody said that there wasn't a stage in the process where everything was reduced to numbers.
But at the same time, did someone sit down at a computer, open up Excel, and enter numbers in cell after cell?
Hell no! the datasets were captured by digitizing actors movements, scenes were tacked together with graphically driven editing equipment. Some data, of course, was derived from procedural animations generated entirely by computer, but most of the procedures were based on motion capture, or formulized versions of motion capture.
I'm not saying that nobody opened up a spreadsheet and massaged or tweaked data by hand. That's the beauty of the process. You can do both. But to say that in order to use a computer everyone ought to learn how to enter data on a keyboard with two buttons (1 and 0) or they're not worthy of your respect - is lame, and shortsighted.
If I sit and dig through manuals on specifics of syntax, and grind on scratch paper and eventually work up a script to do something. yeah. my brain gets some excercise. I'm a human, I'm thinking. I can join mensa now. Proud of me mom? yay.
But if I drag an icon onto another icon, and I get results - I'm getting work done, and quickly.
or, subject yourself to a diet like this, and die in 20 when the earth's climate spins radically out of control.
Or die in 5 years from an anyeurism in your brain.
Or die in 2 years in a fatal car accident (slowly bleeding to death, with a broken neck, watching your own twisted mangled body twitching through the windsheild as you wait for an ambulance to make it to you through rush hour traffic.
Or die in 1 year from police storming your house to arrest you for illegal posession of DeCSS source code; "oh, I thought he had a gun, it was a tofu sandwich? It looked like a gun!".
Or die in 6 months from an out of control irridium satellite crashing through the roof of your house.
I don't know about nutrition, but cooler burning fuels also produce a lot less nitrogen oxides, and other harmful chemicals. Gasoline could also contain much less sulfur. (it could contain zero sulfur, and be much better for car engines' longevity).
However, if we keep electing oil barons into office, the oil companies will have zero incentive to provide us with higher octane, lower sulfur gasolines. (the current octane ratings, by the way, are quite a bit lower, on average, than was common in the early 1970's. - ask any body who works on classic, aircooled VW engines - and only PART of that has to do with lead content. Lead content had less to do with octane, and more to do with acting as a lubricant for valve seats).
Nobody has said that they have NO control over their bodies. But there are a LOT of biological factors that you apparently have no idea about. Some people simply have very strong, very difficult to supress or fight appetites. It's just a fact. Some people have high metabolisms. Some have slower metabolisms. Some people have high metabolisms that slow down abruptly, especially women after childbirth, and menopause.
Another very strong factor is, many people are disabled. Some people have bad joints, degenerated cartilege, or even from sports injuries. I, for one, have a bad back. It's genetic, it's inherited, every male in my family has it. I still manage to work out. I thank God, I'm not like others who have bad knees or bad ankles, because then I wouldn't be able to cycle or surf. Don't be so quick to judge. There are a lot of lazy-ass fat people out there, but you apparently would be suprised to the percentage of those who would not be fat if they didn't have such strong biological or physical limitations, like strong appetite, slow metabolism, thyroid conditions, asthma, or other disabilities. Very few people are gifted with perfect physical characteristics.
family tree and identical twin studies have both pointed to the notion that homosexuality is inherited.
Now, I could see a "choice factor" in the family tree argument if "in the closet" gay fathers are indoctrinating sons. But in the indentical twins cases (adopted, to separate families)- *not*.
I am a person who believes in human free-will, but I also believe that there are numerous things that we have no choice in, and many of those things, we may believe that we made a choice - but, in fact, either the choice was made by biological or sociological law, or there was a strong influence or predisposition. And again, in some cases, force of will can overcome the biological predisposition (for instance, disabled athletes). That means that if there is a "gay" trait, sure, not everyone with that trait will adopt a gay lifestyle. They may marry opposite sex, and enjoy fulfilling lives, and may not ever understand or express their same-sex attraction. Many fans of Pro Wrestling are probably in this camp.
The same is probably true for people who are genetically predisposed with strong appetites. (like myself). These urges can be supressed (with drugs, hypnotherapy, or violence), but the urges are there, and they are stronger in those people than in other people. To suggest a lack of willpower, suggests a lack of intelligence and understanding from the person who made such a suggestion. And even smacks of racism or eugenics! (I'll see your ad hominem attack, and raise you Godwin's law!)
There is a HUGE biological pressure (and evolutionary/survival trait) that compels us to eat as much as our stomachs can hold without barfing. It's not simply a matter of will power.
It's likely that people with "will power" are likely mutants, who, "in the wild" would not survive, because in times of plenty, they wouldn't "fatten up" so during times of famine, they'd die off. And quickly.
There is a biological basis, and if you'd do a little research, you'd find many studies supporting that, and none supporting the notion that fat people, or people who consume too much simply have "no will power" (and by your implication, are worthless human beings - wasteful, greedy, selfish, and thoughtless towards your sensibilities).
And no, I'm not fat. I'm 5'8" and 210 lbs of solid muscle, and I work out 1 hour a day, 7 days a week, and I happen to know quite a bit about "will power" and the biological basis behind it. (or supposed lack of it)
Re:Prosperity: social and economic power is critic
on
Eat Less - Live Longer
·
· Score: 4
That's why the offspring of old guys has a better chance of survival and reproduction than young guys.
Old guys are financially better established (in industrialized nations), and therefore, better able to provide for their offspring, send them to private schools, live in rich, exclusive, safe suburbs, send them to college, and get them elected to the presidency of the united states. (which, as President Bill Clinton proved, is like the BEST way to get laid by a whole bunch of young women).
(the daughters become debutantes, and progress to the trophy-wife stage, below. Poor chicks either cannot afford the plastic surgery to become a trophy wife, or can afford BAD plastic surgery, which negatively impacts survival rate).
These young guys though, learn - that getting laid while young is not productive, because you get saddled with wife and kids too early, and either end up divorced or spending your evenings and saturdays at home with the wife and kids instead of working (or playing golf, which, in a career-enhancing sense, is actually working). So they work, and stay childless, until their wives are too old to have kids, they divorce them (pre-nup!) and marry an 18 year old trophy wife, and knock them up. And the cycle repeats.
The thing I can't understand, is that with all of these pressures, why hasn't some rich guy funded a research into a decent male birth-control method so that young male children of rich old fathers and 18 yr old trophy wife mothers can have sex and not risk pregnancy - this makes no sense at all, because getting laid constantly is one of the perks of the rich, but getting some bimbo knocked up is a huge risk, which can suck away a guy's financial future, and therefore severely compromise the survivabilty of his offspring (meaning - guys with healthy libidos are actually less likey to produce financially robust offspring!). Perhaps child-support laws have not been effective enough for long enough of a time to have had an impact on this.
I know exactly what you're talking about; that nasty itchy feeling.
Until recently, I had FREE internet service, through work, but I was still on a dial-up account, so I was always worried about having the phone line tied up, or how fucking godamn fucking long it took to dial up, or whether Remote Access was going to freeze up on me.
I didn't use internet at home much.
Now with DSL, that I'm paying for. I feel totally unrestricted on the internet at home. The freedom is intoxicating. If I was dictator of the world, I would immediately BAN all cable access, and all dial-up access, and mandate that everyone have DSL access, and that phone companies build new CO's (or repeaters) to make sure everyone had it.
the surest sign that consoles are dying, and will die, is that more and more, they're picking up PC-like features, CD, DVD, modem/netplay, keyboards, etc.
It's a short step from there to Net Appliance and ASP hell. And the price difference of a game console-cum-Net Appliance and a bargain-basement PC will be pretty slim. $400 to $599-ish?
Most smart people (i would think) would opt for the more expensive computer, with less reliance on flaky net connections and ASP relationships. Then again, AOL has a LOT of users. . . Only a matter of time before AOL/TW buys up a consumer electronics company and has them build them a set-top box/enhanced game console/net appliance. Given a choice between THAT, and a PC running NT, I'd rather have the PC. but then again, Microsoft wants to give us X Box, so I think I'll just buy the PC, fdisk, and install *BSD.
. . and though I thought Wayne's World was a wonderful piece of postmodern genius, I would rather eat fresh dog shit on a slice of toasted toe-cheeze, than a Pizza Hut Pizza. Pepsi's okay, I guess.
People still aren't buying it. The W2k adoption rate is still like 1/3 what the analysts were saying, and 1/10th what Microsoft was hoping. ActiveDirectory being the only compelling feature, and at the same time, a compelling reason NOT to upgrade (due to the added overhead and cost to implement).
um - no Solaris? You might want to include the #1 Unix. (#1 not be technical merit, of course! let's not go *there*, but let's not forget this clearly important species)
Slashdot Mirror
There is one potentially interesting variation on the theme of life that is possible - chirality. All life on Earth is based on left-handed protiens, instead of right-handed. And nobody really knows why, because right-handed would be possible, but chemically, might be a bit different.
Yes, I've heard of infared, I've also heard that IR is reflected by clouds.
No, that whole satellite imagery thing was just plain silly.
First off, the satellite is travelling at thousands of miles per hour (relative to the ground), so the shot where they couldn't see Brill's face, because they were directly overhead was stupid, stupid, stupid. None of it was even remotely possible.
Some people want all fission technology banned. There are reasons of fear of accidents. Fear of storage of waste. Fear of terrorism. You can argue away all of these, and others can argue them right back.
one thing nobody can refute, because it has so plainly been demonstrated over the past 50 years of human history:
The effect on the political global climate, when a country HAS a nuclear weapon, and has demonstrated that they are not afraid to use it.
Overall: Good or Bad for mankind?
You decide.
THe dome (called a sarcophagus) was built with cracks to allow heat to escape. (wild birds routinely fly in and out of the structure through these cracks, water seeps in and down to the water table).
Perhaps the world's greatest experts on control of leakage of radiation into the environment are the brave men and women at Battelle at the Pacific Northwest Laboratories (in Hanford, WA). They are in charge of the cleanup/ damage control at Hanford, and also, they're aiding the Ukranians with Chernyobl. They will be monitoring this, and working on it for at least another 100 years.
I wouldn't call for the elimination of fission because of the possibility for accidents (however, no matter how smug you are about your design, an accident can and will happen. Remember; the titanic was unsinkable).
My worry is the disposal of waste. I think most people see that as a problem. The US has NO policy for the permanent disposal of nuclear waste, therefore, it's all piling up AT the plants sites themselves. Precisely where it was NOT supposed to be stored long-term.
Seeing as how this stuff is lethal for periods of time much longer than humanity has even existed as a SPECIES let alone a civilization, and seeing as how the OLDEST structures we've ever created are only thousands of years old, and already crumbling (granted, construction technology has advanced since then), and given that utilities have a huge potential to make tons of money on making power, but no financial incentive to do it safely - why SHOULD I trust nuclear power?
Personally, if we could just launch it into the sun, or reprocess it into harmlessness, I would accept a sodium-moderated reactor in my neighborhood. (I currently live near Diablo Canyon, which is in a Geologically unstable region, I've toured the plant, and the structural earthquake reinforcements were very impressive. Their backup plan for cooling the reactor in the event of a power-loss was NOT impressive. Three days worth of diesel fuel on site for diesel pumps, and then, a "guaranteed" contract with a local fuel supplier? yeah, that'll work in a war-situation, or severe earthquake.)
You can simply shut down a coal plant. Or even a sodium moderated plant (provided it's not damaged by disaster, terrorists, or collateral damage in a war). But current plants require continued effort to keep the cores cooled after they're shut down. And that's all reliant on the existence of a modern supply infrastructure, which can all disappear in a disaster or a war.
It was maybe 10 years ago, but I remember reading about teams that sent in radio-controled camera robots to scope things out, and they didn't last long. A few hours in that environment tended to fry the electronics. (not just the radiation, but the physical heat being emitted - this stuff isn't just "hot", it's also literally hot)
This is not going to be cleaned up any time soon.
oh jeez, a Marshall plan for Russia?
Do you have any idea how much foreign aid money has gone into the pockets of corrupt politicians and gangsters?
Lets have some rule of law first. The current atmosphere of anarchy is not where I want to send my tax dollars.
you can drink water from a well within 100 feet of a coal-burning plant.
If you drink water from a well within 100 feet of Cherney-baby, you'll get Sr90, and bone cancer. Cheer up. You can safely drink there in about a million years.
The ironic thing here, is that this is one of the central tennants of Christianity.
Nobody is perfect. Everyone is a sinner. And therefore - nobody has a right to judge anybody, and if you do notice that another person has made a mistake, you better forgive them.
I agree, the world WOULD be a better place if everybody would accept these facts. Jeez, that Jesus guy was smart!
Unfortunately, Christianity's strongest proponents seem to have missed the point.
moron.
Nobody said that there wasn't a stage in the process where everything was reduced to numbers.
But at the same time, did someone sit down at a computer, open up Excel, and enter numbers in cell after cell?
Hell no! the datasets were captured by digitizing actors movements, scenes were tacked together with graphically driven editing equipment. Some data, of course, was derived from procedural animations generated entirely by computer, but most of the procedures were based on motion capture, or formulized versions of motion capture.
I'm not saying that nobody opened up a spreadsheet and massaged or tweaked data by hand. That's the beauty of the process. You can do both. But to say that in order to use a computer everyone ought to learn how to enter data on a keyboard with two buttons (1 and 0) or they're not worthy of your respect - is lame, and shortsighted.
The point of a GUI is to get work done quickly.
If I sit and dig through manuals on specifics of syntax, and grind on scratch paper and eventually work up a script to do something. yeah. my brain gets some excercise. I'm a human, I'm thinking. I can join mensa now. Proud of me mom? yay.
But if I drag an icon onto another icon, and I get results - I'm getting work done, and quickly.
It's a tool, stupid!
or, subject yourself to a diet like this, and die in 20 when the earth's climate spins radically out of control.
Or die in 5 years from an anyeurism in your brain.
Or die in 2 years in a fatal car accident (slowly bleeding to death, with a broken neck, watching your own twisted mangled body twitching through the windsheild as you wait for an ambulance to make it to you through rush hour traffic.
Or die in 1 year from police storming your house to arrest you for illegal posession of DeCSS source code; "oh, I thought he had a gun, it was a tofu sandwich? It looked like a gun!".
Or die in 6 months from an out of control irridium satellite crashing through the roof of your house.
do what the rest of us do.
rationalize.
I don't know about nutrition, but cooler burning fuels also produce a lot less nitrogen oxides, and other harmful chemicals. Gasoline could also contain much less sulfur. (it could contain zero sulfur, and be much better for car engines' longevity).
However, if we keep electing oil barons into office, the oil companies will have zero incentive to provide us with higher octane, lower sulfur gasolines. (the current octane ratings, by the way, are quite a bit lower, on average, than was common in the early 1970's. - ask any body who works on classic, aircooled VW engines - and only PART of that has to do with lead content. Lead content had less to do with octane, and more to do with acting as a lubricant for valve seats).
Nobody has said that they have NO control over their bodies. But there are a LOT of biological factors that you apparently have no idea about. Some people simply have very strong, very difficult to supress or fight appetites. It's just a fact. Some people have high metabolisms. Some have slower metabolisms. Some people have high metabolisms that slow down abruptly, especially women after childbirth, and menopause.
Another very strong factor is, many people are disabled. Some people have bad joints, degenerated cartilege, or even from sports injuries. I, for one, have a bad back. It's genetic, it's inherited, every male in my family has it. I still manage to work out. I thank God, I'm not like others who have bad knees or bad ankles, because then I wouldn't be able to cycle or surf. Don't be so quick to judge. There are a lot of lazy-ass fat people out there, but you apparently would be suprised to the percentage of those who would not be fat if they didn't have such strong biological or physical limitations, like strong appetite, slow metabolism, thyroid conditions, asthma, or other disabilities. Very few people are gifted with perfect physical characteristics.
family tree and identical twin studies have both pointed to the notion that homosexuality is inherited.
Now, I could see a "choice factor" in the family tree argument if "in the closet" gay fathers are indoctrinating sons. But in the indentical twins cases (adopted, to separate families)- *not*.
I am a person who believes in human free-will, but I also believe that there are numerous things that we have no choice in, and many of those things, we may believe that we made a choice - but, in fact, either the choice was made by biological or sociological law, or there was a strong influence or predisposition. And again, in some cases, force of will can overcome the biological predisposition (for instance, disabled athletes). That means that if there is a "gay" trait, sure, not everyone with that trait will adopt a gay lifestyle. They may marry opposite sex, and enjoy fulfilling lives, and may not ever understand or express their same-sex attraction. Many fans of Pro Wrestling are probably in this camp.
The same is probably true for people who are genetically predisposed with strong appetites. (like myself). These urges can be supressed (with drugs, hypnotherapy, or violence), but the urges are there, and they are stronger in those people than in other people. To suggest a lack of willpower, suggests a lack of intelligence and understanding from the person who made such a suggestion. And even smacks of racism or eugenics! (I'll see your ad hominem attack, and raise you Godwin's law!)
There is a HUGE biological pressure (and evolutionary/survival trait) that compels us to eat as much as our stomachs can hold without barfing. It's not simply a matter of will power.
It's likely that people with "will power" are likely mutants, who, "in the wild" would not survive, because in times of plenty, they wouldn't "fatten up" so during times of famine, they'd die off. And quickly.
There is a biological basis, and if you'd do a little research, you'd find many studies supporting that, and none supporting the notion that fat people, or people who consume too much simply have "no will power" (and by your implication, are worthless human beings - wasteful, greedy, selfish, and thoughtless towards your sensibilities).
And no, I'm not fat. I'm 5'8" and 210 lbs of solid muscle, and I work out 1 hour a day, 7 days a week, and I happen to know quite a bit about "will power" and the biological basis behind it. (or supposed lack of it)
That's why the offspring of old guys has a better chance of survival and reproduction than young guys.
Old guys are financially better established (in industrialized nations), and therefore, better able to provide for their offspring, send them to private schools, live in rich, exclusive, safe suburbs, send them to college, and get them elected to the presidency of the united states. (which, as President Bill Clinton proved, is like the BEST way to get laid by a whole bunch of young women).
(the daughters become debutantes, and progress to the trophy-wife stage, below. Poor chicks either cannot afford the plastic surgery to become a trophy wife, or can afford BAD plastic surgery, which negatively impacts survival rate).
These young guys though, learn - that getting laid while young is not productive, because you get saddled with wife and kids too early, and either end up divorced or spending your evenings and saturdays at home with the wife and kids instead of working (or playing golf, which, in a career-enhancing sense, is actually working). So they work, and stay childless, until their wives are too old to have kids, they divorce them (pre-nup!) and marry an 18 year old trophy wife, and knock them up. And the cycle repeats.
The thing I can't understand, is that with all of these pressures, why hasn't some rich guy funded a research into a decent male birth-control method so that young male children of rich old fathers and 18 yr old trophy wife mothers can have sex and not risk pregnancy - this makes no sense at all, because getting laid constantly is one of the perks of the rich, but getting some bimbo knocked up is a huge risk, which can suck away a guy's financial future, and therefore severely compromise the survivabilty of his offspring (meaning - guys with healthy libidos are actually less likey to produce financially robust offspring!). Perhaps child-support laws have not been effective enough for long enough of a time to have had an impact on this.
I know exactly what you're talking about; that nasty itchy feeling.
Until recently, I had FREE internet service, through work, but I was still on a dial-up account, so I was always worried about having the phone line tied up, or how fucking godamn fucking long it took to dial up, or whether Remote Access was going to freeze up on me.
I didn't use internet at home much.
Now with DSL, that I'm paying for. I feel totally unrestricted on the internet at home. The freedom is intoxicating. If I was dictator of the world, I would immediately BAN all cable access, and all dial-up access, and mandate that everyone have DSL access, and that phone companies build new CO's (or repeaters) to make sure everyone had it.
Would you vote for me?
the surest sign that consoles are dying, and will die, is that more and more, they're picking up PC-like features, CD, DVD, modem/netplay, keyboards, etc.
It's a short step from there to Net Appliance and ASP hell. And the price difference of a game console-cum-Net Appliance and a bargain-basement PC will be pretty slim. $400 to $599-ish?
Most smart people (i would think) would opt for the more expensive computer, with less reliance on flaky net connections and ASP relationships. Then again, AOL has a LOT of users. . . Only a matter of time before AOL/TW buys up a consumer electronics company and has them build them a set-top box/enhanced game console/net appliance. Given a choice between THAT, and a PC running NT, I'd rather have the PC. but then again, Microsoft wants to give us X Box, so I think I'll just buy the PC, fdisk, and install *BSD.
. . . maybe Be will buy Corel's Linux? Or maybe they'll be the next lucky owners of WordPerfect?
. . and though I thought Wayne's World was a wonderful piece of postmodern genius, I would rather eat fresh dog shit on a slice of toasted toe-cheeze, than a Pizza Hut Pizza. Pepsi's okay, I guess.
I wouldn't say "no problems"
People still aren't buying it. The W2k adoption rate is still like 1/3 what the analysts were saying, and 1/10th what Microsoft was hoping. ActiveDirectory being the only compelling feature, and at the same time, a compelling reason NOT to upgrade (due to the added overhead and cost to implement).
um - no Solaris? You might want to include the #1 Unix. (#1 not be technical merit, of course! let's not go *there*, but let's not forget this clearly important species)