That is utter BS. We have one of the lowest levels of those receiving unemployment benefits. But workforce participation is rather low. Which means, many are unemployed, or underemployed, and have been so for prolonged states of time.
Do you know how many college degreed individuals are working menial retail jobs and part time jobs at $10/hr? Tons.
About the lowest since 2000. (Please note, that first half of the last century was a single parent workforce, thus participation was lower, because a single job could support a family.) https://data.bls.gov/timeserie...
In most Western nations, you also get free health care and numerous other free benefits. Often, reside in a denser population setting, so that urban mass transit can be effective. (U.S. population density is very moderate.) On top of that, many Western nations offer free or reduced college.
So a recent American, needs to pay for ALL the items you in your Western European county has to pay for. They then need to pay $5K-$10K for health care, few hundred dollars a month toward transportation to and from work, and often several hundred dollars a month in student loans.
So that $65K you're griping about, probably provides less discretionable purchasing power than what you're new grads are receiving.
"I've been in the company of some really skilled engineers who were here on some form of H1-B Visa"
Yes, you have. And those really skilled engineers were likely being paid an average engineering wage, where as to hire an American with the same caliber of skills, one would have to pay nearly twice as much.
Here's the big rub, Americans, can't compete with H1B visa holders. Why not? Because, education in the U.S. is too expensive. It'll cost you around a $100,000 for a Master's in Engineering. In India, what does it run, $5,000? How long does it take you to pay off $5,000 when working in the U.S. versus $100,000 + interest?
The U.S. worker, let's say with a 15 year loan at 6% interest, needs to earn an additional $10,000 more than the Indian worker just to be on par financially. And this is a factor that is never really considered when comparing and stating, well, they take the jobs that Americans won't. NO, they take jobs Americans CAN'T. And they allow corporations to continually push down wages, resulting in more jobs Americans CAN'T afford to take.
It's illegal to replace qualified U.S. workers with H1B visa holders.
***
Ah, you see, we outsourced 1/2 hour work to India. So one of our job requirements along with 8 years of HTML 5 experience was the ability to speak fluent Hindi in order to communicate with our off-shore IT department.
Sadly, we couldn't find any qualified U.S. personnel to fill any of the positions.
Exactly, H1B visas are used to hire and fire at will. Essentially, it is a way for upper management to have one less responsibility while maximizing bonuses.
The truth is, Bernie should of won. Except Hillary and the DNC flat out cheated on so many levels to prevent him from being the nominee. Americans wanted a non-establishment candidate
- Hillary Clinton, prospective nominee, expected candidate, 100% establishment, epitome of establishment and partisan politics. - Bernie Sanders, long shot, good person, non-establishment candidate. - Donald Trump, a jerk, major personal issues, non-establishment candidate.
Americans wanted a non-establishment candidate. Americans would have elected Bernie Sanders. Except Hillary and the DNC did everything they could to block and prevent him (including flat out cheating, providing debate questions, removing hundreds of thousands of voters from voter rolls in pro-Bernie districts, miraculous coin flips, pulling in favors from the media to downplay and hide Bernie's successes and Hillary's failures, and so much more).
The end result, DNC burned their younger demographic, showing the youth their votes don't matter. America, which wanted a anti-establishment candidate was now left with only one, Trump. The combination of a desire for anti-establishment and DNC hurting their own base resulted in what was to many, a shocking turn of events - President Trump. Yet, the result was exactly as I had predicted. All my Democrat friends who mocked me over my support of Bernie Sanders were shocked and dismayed. But I tried to explain to them, here I was, a lifelong Republican and Ron Paul supporter, and I was out there with Bernie Sanders yard signs and so was my mother. This is something that most did not understand. And folks like me, and there were quite a few, ( a lot of Ron Paul, anti-war libertarian Republicans were supporting Bernie Sanders) were NEVER going to vote for Hillary.
People like the above, are still so flabbergasted and clueless as to why their presumed perfect candidate Hillary failed to win. They have clamored for straws ever since, and latched onto the idea that somehow Russia was the deciding factor. It'd be laughable, if it weren't so sad.
Hillary lost, because she was a 100% establishment candidate who was caught using the full weight of the establishment to block the democratic process. She was the wrong candidate, at the wrong time. And a bad one at that...
So many simple steps that could be taken to improve the system, like those seeking less candidates receive approval first.
> Request only 1-2 H1B's, you have top priority, 3-10 then you have second tier priority, 11-100, third tier, 100-1,000 fourth tier, 1,000+ last tier. All higher tiers are reviewed and granted prior to the next tier. That alone would shift the H1B program to a much more legitimate implementation.
> Increase salary requirement and set to inflation adjustment every 5 years.
> Random audits, all candidate resumes provided must be uploaded to the H1B visa program. Companies with a 100 or more H1B visas are randomly selected for audit and review.
> 10% tax levied per $100,000 bracket of H1B visa, the revenues directly fund programs to provide free access to STEM programs at community and state colleges. If the H1B visas are needed because there are not enough qualified candidates, than the program should help fund the qualifying of candidates.
Or the fact, that even when a father receives primary custody, or makes less than the mother. Mothers are often assigned lower child support payments for equivalent wages. Furthermore, mother's are less likely to pay their support obligations than fathers.
Where is the punishment? Oh, we've basically said you can't make any acquisition purchases until you fix you ways. Um, that's NOT punishment.
"Unprecedented Punishment" would be the government doing its job. That means, board members don't resign, they're tossed into jail. That means fines.
20,000 cars repossessed by their corrupt system. At let's say $20,000 each that is $400,000,000. What should the punishment be? Plus all the other fraudulent crap. Considering that a minor traffic offense often results in a $400 ticket, which equates to around 10% of an average U.S. worker's monthly gross. An equivalent fine for minor infraction would be around $750 million. However, in this case, Wells Fargo's actions were egregious and far from a minor infraction, causing tens of thousands great financial harm. And they're a repeat offender. So let's make it closer to a repeat DUI. That would put it around $7.5 billion.
So let's see the "unprecedent punishment" of treating a corporation as a person and hitting their executives with jail time, and their finances with a fine that is simply equivalent to what an individual would be hit with $7.5 billion seems reasonable to me.
Spray insecticides and herbicides with abandon, and not simply turn the land into Mordor.
It is not global warming, it is partly habitat destruction and mainly the fact that we dump a crap ton of toxins designed to kill these creatures into the environment EVERY DAY!!!
Amazon.com looked at their bottom line, and they saw one very large expenditure that they had zero control over, and no ability to optimize. What do you think that was?
Employee healthcare costs!
Now, I recently had to get an albuterol inhaler. Albuterol is cheap, it was created in 1966. But inhalers, where they put a tiny bit of albuterol into an aerosol spray run like $65 after insurance contracted discount. That is INSANE!!!!
I'd be surprised if those inhalers cost more than a $1 to manufacture. So imagine, AmazonBasicsHealth offering a similar inhaler for $4. This monstrous price hike is extremely common. CPAPS are basically over-glorified aquarium air pumps. Yet, they cost around $2,000. And many who have utilized, will attest to the fact that the designs are often poorly thought out and build quality lacking. But hey, that plastic tubing is FDA approved, so you get billed $20-$80 for a hose that probably cost 79 cents.
So Amazon looking at this, can easily be like,....well we don't need to make a profit. Because, if we simply sell RX and services at cost, we can reduce our employee overhead by around 10%-15%. For Amazon, a 15% reduction of employee costs is a huge profit margin increase. And Amazon.com is big enough, that once they get it on the ball, can be very disruptive. They can go, and say to a manufacturer, we want a good CPAP for $500. If they don't relent. They design and build their own, and then sell it for $200. The companies will either have to come to the table or face eradication.
But the big thing is services....the doctors and nurses themselves. I've thought that the solution to this problem is to actually fund free medical school - with the catch being that half of a doctors time for the first 20 years or so is obligated back to either the company or community.
One of his short novels in the juvenile class. I read this to my then 7 year old daughter. She was tickled pink regarding the concept of time and space and speed. And how one sibling could stay on earth and age while the other one would remain young.
We then watched Interstellar, which was a bit harder to process but showed the similar affect with regards to a black hole.
Obviously this just skims the surface, but it did help her conceptualize the ideas.
Sea turtles have been around for hundreds of millions of years. In fact, they reached gigantic proportions during the Cretaceous period. Perhaps because of abundant food supply. I wager jellyfish thrived in the oceans when the equatorial surface water temperature reached a 108 F.
Yes you read that correctly, sea turtles existed at a time when the water temperature peaked at 108 F. Presently, the peak for equatorial surface water appears to be around 86 F. So when we exclaim that one or two degree change is going to cause destruction of the sea turtle population, while historical science shows they thrived at temperatures that were 20 degrees warmer. You kind of look like an idiot.
Um, care to cite your argument. Because for sex species, with the possible exception of sea horses, and a few other male pouch incubating species, uh...yes...females determine the population levels.
Let's see, just put aside monogamy for a moment. How many women do you think you could fertilize in a year.
Let's really up the ante. Lets say 99% of the male population die off, and there are now a 100 women for every one man. And well, a lot of them, a really, really a lot of them want to have both sex and babies. So they're at your door lining up...
Well, if timed to ovulation (which most other species send signals to alert so mating occurs then), then they could fertilize quite a few.
I wager that I personally could probably fertilize probably 150-700 women a year. The issue is maintaining enough male specimens to ensure genetic diversity.
Stop using your brain, reasonable discourse, logic, and science to make arguments against Global Warming. You're arguing from a scientific standpoint against a religious dogma.;-)
Do you understand that what we are seeing IS that balance in action?
> Jellyfish populations UP due to warmer climate. > Sea turtles giving birth to more females to enable the population of sea turtles to increase in correlation to the increased abundance of their primary food source.
This observation is proof that the aquatic ecosystem balance is in fact WORKING, not that it is breaking.
How many anonymous idiots can't seem to comprehend that having an increase in the population of females is how a species increases it's population, not decreases.
And why might this be for sea turtles? Well, warmer weather likely means more jellyfish. So their sex cycling is tuned to follow an increase in the jellyfish populations. And then during an ice age, when the jellyfish populations decrease, sea turtles begin to birth more males, thus beginning the reduction of their population to maintain a balance with the food supply.
This is freshman biology folks. This is science. Blaming everything on GW is NOT science.
The main cause of the coral reef die offs, is NOT global warming, but pesticides and agricultural runoff. But global warming lets the perpetrators of the destruction of the coral reefs to go scot free.
Presently, there is a 40%-60% increase in jellyfish populations in many areas of the world. You are correct, sea turtles are one of their primary predators.
How do you increase the population of sea turtles very quickly? Choose the best answer. a) Maintain the present 50/50 male/female population balance b) Increase the male population to 80%, decrease the female population to 20% c) Increase the female population to 80%, decrease the male population to 20%
Which of these would result in an increase in the number of sea turtles eggs being laid? And thus an increase in the population of sea turtles. And thus the addition of a balancing agent to the increase in jellyfish populations.
*** Now go back and read the article, and realize how very very stupid it is. Can we stop blaming everything on global warming.
Btw, did you know there is a significant increase in erectile dysfunction in human males, this too is caused by global warming.
Sea turtles under threat as majority being born are female....
THIS IS PROBABLY THE BEST NEWS WE'VE HEARD ABOUT SEA TURTLES IN YEARS!!!!
Why?
Okay, let's just use our brains. And for a moment, in order to simplify, I am going to use humans in order to reduce the variable set (as sea turtles lay batches of eggs).
Lets say there are a 100 people. What is the maximum number of new babies that can be born?
Let's say, it was a 50/50 population of male/female. The maximum with typical births is 50 babies born.
The maximum births would be achieved by a population of 99 females, and 1 male. Yes, a single fertile male human being could fertilize 99 human females (and likely enjoy it too). Giving 99 new babies, though the human race would suffer from genetic diversity issues.
The nightmare scenario is not more females being born, but more males. If we had 99 males, and only 1 female...the birth rate is 1.
What this report really points too, is a potential rebound for sea turtles. If we have 10 to 90 ration, we are looking at potentially seeing a lot lot more sea turtles. Why might this be? Okay, they blame the warmer sea temps. And they may in fact be a factor, but lets look at the standard life equation. Population increases occur when there is habitat and food. Presently, there is talk about a increase in jellyfish populations, with some regions seeing a 40%-60% increase. http://www.isciencetimes.com/a...
This means more availability of sea turtles prime food. Okay, so now consider the correlation. More food, turtles not having to range as far, so they're staying in the warmer regions. Big glut of jellyfish, saw one article exclaim that global warming was going to cause jellyfish to take over the ocean. So now, one of the prime predators of jellyfish is setting the stage to take advantage of this jellyfish bloom.
THIS IS GREAT NEWS!!!
*** As for the coral reef die offs/bleaching. Yes, that gets blamed on global warming. However, there are a number of scientists who have said that is a mere secondary issue. The primary cause is extremely high levels of agricultural pesticides, (designed to kill arthropods and invertebrates), that are affecting the reefs - particularly off the coast of Australia.
Similar to the bee die offs, which were repeatedly blamed on global warming, until strong evidence began showing that pesticides, such as nicotides and others were largely responsible. And with both colonies (bees and coral) what we see is a conjunction of issues. Pesticides weaken the species, which become more susceptible to illnesses (parasites particularly with bees, and a herpes virus with coral reefs).
*** IF YOU CARE ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT, you need to STFU about global warming. Because whether it is occurring or not is irrelevant. (Trust me, the earth has been much warmer, life thrived, vegetation increased, deserts shrunk, granted human coastal villages and cities may be under water...but humans adapt.) However, global warming is being used to mask the multitude of real and threatening environmental problems.
> Deforestation used to be a topic. We've not stopped cutting down rainforests, nor looked at using rapid renewables such as hemp for paper or bamboo to replace our 2x4's.
> Pesticides and herbicides used to be a topic. Now, all the die off of species are blamed on global warming. Some of these chemicals are genetically destructive and can persist for decades, centuries, perhaps even milleniums.
> We used to talk about waste, landfills, etc. But we don't...we only talk about global warming.
We need to stop this, quadruple copyrights for every album.
If an artist doesn't write their own lyrics, and they create and release a song. It shouldn't be the listener who has to pay for the rights of those lyrics. That should be all handled by the artist.
Slashdot Mirror
Blackberry Officially Announces Death with Troll Lawsuit.
I am highly doubtful their claim will have anything substantial that wasn't already existent in ICQ back in 1996.
That is utter BS. We have one of the lowest levels of those receiving unemployment benefits. But workforce participation is rather low. Which means, many are unemployed, or underemployed, and have been so for prolonged states of time.
Do you know how many college degreed individuals are working menial retail jobs and part time jobs at $10/hr? Tons.
About the lowest since 2000. (Please note, that first half of the last century was a single parent workforce, thus participation was lower, because a single job could support a family.)
https://data.bls.gov/timeserie...
Dear Anonymous Coward,
In most Western nations, you also get free health care and numerous other free benefits. Often, reside in a denser population setting, so that urban mass transit can be effective. (U.S. population density is very moderate.) On top of that, many Western nations offer free or reduced college.
So a recent American, needs to pay for ALL the items you in your Western European county has to pay for. They then need to pay $5K-$10K for health care, few hundred dollars a month toward transportation to and from work, and often several hundred dollars a month in student loans.
So that $65K you're griping about, probably provides less discretionable purchasing power than what you're new grads are receiving.
You've been on the same side of the same coin...
"I've been in the company of some really skilled engineers who were here on some form of H1-B Visa"
Yes, you have. And those really skilled engineers were likely being paid an average engineering wage, where as to hire an American with the same caliber of skills, one would have to pay nearly twice as much.
Here's the big rub, Americans, can't compete with H1B visa holders. Why not? Because, education in the U.S. is too expensive. It'll cost you around a $100,000 for a Master's in Engineering. In India, what does it run, $5,000? How long does it take you to pay off $5,000 when working in the U.S. versus $100,000 + interest?
The U.S. worker, let's say with a 15 year loan at 6% interest, needs to earn an additional $10,000 more than the Indian worker just to be on par financially. And this is a factor that is never really considered when comparing and stating, well, they take the jobs that Americans won't. NO, they take jobs Americans CAN'T. And they allow corporations to continually push down wages, resulting in more jobs Americans CAN'T afford to take.
It's illegal to replace qualified U.S. workers with H1B visa holders.
***
Ah, you see, we outsourced 1/2 hour work to India. So one of our job requirements along with 8 years of HTML 5 experience was the ability to speak fluent Hindi in order to communicate with our off-shore IT department.
Sadly, we couldn't find any qualified U.S. personnel to fill any of the positions.
Exactly, H1B visas are used to hire and fire at will. Essentially, it is a way for upper management to have one less responsibility while maximizing bonuses.
The truth is, Bernie should of won. Except Hillary and the DNC flat out cheated on so many levels to prevent him from being the nominee. Americans wanted a non-establishment candidate
- Hillary Clinton, prospective nominee, expected candidate, 100% establishment, epitome of establishment and partisan politics.
- Bernie Sanders, long shot, good person, non-establishment candidate.
- Donald Trump, a jerk, major personal issues, non-establishment candidate.
Americans wanted a non-establishment candidate. Americans would have elected Bernie Sanders. Except Hillary and the DNC did everything they could to block and prevent him (including flat out cheating, providing debate questions, removing hundreds of thousands of voters from voter rolls in pro-Bernie districts, miraculous coin flips, pulling in favors from the media to downplay and hide Bernie's successes and Hillary's failures, and so much more).
The end result, DNC burned their younger demographic, showing the youth their votes don't matter. America, which wanted a anti-establishment candidate was now left with only one, Trump. The combination of a desire for anti-establishment and DNC hurting their own base resulted in what was to many, a shocking turn of events - President Trump. Yet, the result was exactly as I had predicted. All my Democrat friends who mocked me over my support of Bernie Sanders were shocked and dismayed. But I tried to explain to them, here I was, a lifelong Republican and Ron Paul supporter, and I was out there with Bernie Sanders yard signs and so was my mother. This is something that most did not understand. And folks like me, and there were quite a few, ( a lot of Ron Paul, anti-war libertarian Republicans were supporting Bernie Sanders) were NEVER going to vote for Hillary.
People like the above, are still so flabbergasted and clueless as to why their presumed perfect candidate Hillary failed to win. They have clamored for straws ever since, and latched onto the idea that somehow Russia was the deciding factor. It'd be laughable, if it weren't so sad.
Hillary lost, because she was a 100% establishment candidate who was caught using the full weight of the establishment to block the democratic process. She was the wrong candidate, at the wrong time. And a bad one at that...
So many simple steps that could be taken to improve the system, like those seeking less candidates receive approval first.
> Request only 1-2 H1B's, you have top priority, 3-10 then you have second tier priority, 11-100, third tier, 100-1,000 fourth tier, 1,000+ last tier. All higher tiers are reviewed and granted prior to the next tier. That alone would shift the H1B program to a much more legitimate implementation.
> Increase salary requirement and set to inflation adjustment every 5 years.
> Random audits, all candidate resumes provided must be uploaded to the H1B visa program. Companies with a 100 or more H1B visas are randomly selected for audit and review.
> 10% tax levied per $100,000 bracket of H1B visa, the revenues directly fund programs to provide free access to STEM programs at community and state colleges. If the H1B visas are needed because there are not enough qualified candidates, than the program should help fund the qualifying of candidates.
Or the fact, that even when a father receives primary custody, or makes less than the mother. Mothers are often assigned lower child support payments for equivalent wages. Furthermore, mother's are less likely to pay their support obligations than fathers.
FORCE WOMEN TO WORK EQUALLY...
I mean, my ex-wife is taking $2,000/month. By choosing to work part-time, she gains herself more free money.
No more stay at home moms, make them work.
Um...really?
Where is the punishment? Oh, we've basically said you can't make any acquisition purchases until you fix you ways. Um, that's NOT punishment.
"Unprecedented Punishment" would be the government doing its job. That means, board members don't resign, they're tossed into jail. That means fines.
20,000 cars repossessed by their corrupt system. At let's say $20,000 each that is $400,000,000. What should the punishment be? Plus all the other fraudulent crap. Considering that a minor traffic offense often results in a $400 ticket, which equates to around 10% of an average U.S. worker's monthly gross. An equivalent fine for minor infraction would be around $750 million. However, in this case, Wells Fargo's actions were egregious and far from a minor infraction, causing tens of thousands great financial harm. And they're a repeat offender. So let's make it closer to a repeat DUI. That would put it around $7.5 billion.
So let's see the "unprecedent punishment" of treating a corporation as a person and hitting their executives with jail time, and their finances with a fine that is simply equivalent to what an individual would be hit with $7.5 billion seems reasonable to me.
Spray insecticides and herbicides with abandon, and not simply turn the land into Mordor.
It is not global warming, it is partly habitat destruction and mainly the fact that we dump a crap ton of toxins designed to kill these creatures into the environment EVERY DAY!!!
Amazon.com looked at their bottom line, and they saw one very large expenditure that they had zero control over, and no ability to optimize. What do you think that was?
Employee healthcare costs!
Now, I recently had to get an albuterol inhaler. Albuterol is cheap, it was created in 1966. But inhalers, where they put a tiny bit of albuterol into an aerosol spray run like $65 after insurance contracted discount. That is INSANE!!!!
I'd be surprised if those inhalers cost more than a $1 to manufacture. So imagine, AmazonBasicsHealth offering a similar inhaler for $4. This monstrous price hike is extremely common. CPAPS are basically over-glorified aquarium air pumps. Yet, they cost around $2,000. And many who have utilized, will attest to the fact that the designs are often poorly thought out and build quality lacking. But hey, that plastic tubing is FDA approved, so you get billed $20-$80 for a hose that probably cost 79 cents.
So Amazon looking at this, can easily be like,....well we don't need to make a profit. Because, if we simply sell RX and services at cost, we can reduce our employee overhead by around 10%-15%. For Amazon, a 15% reduction of employee costs is a huge profit margin increase. And Amazon.com is big enough, that once they get it on the ball, can be very disruptive. They can go, and say to a manufacturer, we want a good CPAP for $500. If they don't relent. They design and build their own, and then sell it for $200. The companies will either have to come to the table or face eradication.
But the big thing is services....the doctors and nurses themselves. I've thought that the solution to this problem is to actually fund free medical school - with the catch being that half of a doctors time for the first 20 years or so is obligated back to either the company or community.
One of his short novels in the juvenile class. I read this to my then 7 year old daughter. She was tickled pink regarding the concept of time and space and speed. And how one sibling could stay on earth and age while the other one would remain young.
We then watched Interstellar, which was a bit harder to process but showed the similar affect with regards to a black hole.
Obviously this just skims the surface, but it did help her conceptualize the ideas.
Sea turtles have been around for hundreds of millions of years. In fact, they reached gigantic proportions during the Cretaceous period. Perhaps because of abundant food supply. I wager jellyfish thrived in the oceans when the equatorial surface water temperature reached a 108 F.
Yes you read that correctly, sea turtles existed at a time when the water temperature peaked at 108 F. Presently, the peak for equatorial surface water appears to be around 86 F. So when we exclaim that one or two degree change is going to cause destruction of the sea turtle population, while historical science shows they thrived at temperatures that were 20 degrees warmer. You kind of look like an idiot.
Um, care to cite your argument. Because for sex species, with the possible exception of sea horses, and a few other male pouch incubating species, uh...yes...females determine the population levels.
Let's see, just put aside monogamy for a moment. How many women do you think you could fertilize in a year.
Let's really up the ante. Lets say 99% of the male population die off, and there are now a 100 women for every one man. And well, a lot of them, a really, really a lot of them want to have both sex and babies. So they're at your door lining up...
Well, if timed to ovulation (which most other species send signals to alert so mating occurs then), then they could fertilize quite a few.
I wager that I personally could probably fertilize probably 150-700 women a year. The issue is maintaining enough male specimens to ensure genetic diversity.
You have violated the religious dogmas of society. You will be deleted. EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE!
Stop using your brain, reasonable discourse, logic, and science to make arguments against Global Warming. You're arguing from a scientific standpoint against a religious dogma. ;-)
Do you understand that what we are seeing IS that balance in action?
> Jellyfish populations UP due to warmer climate.
> Sea turtles giving birth to more females to enable the population of sea turtles to increase in correlation to the increased abundance of their primary food source.
This observation is proof that the aquatic ecosystem balance is in fact WORKING, not that it is breaking.
How many anonymous idiots can't seem to comprehend that having an increase in the population of females is how a species increases it's population, not decreases.
And why might this be for sea turtles? Well, warmer weather likely means more jellyfish. So their sex cycling is tuned to follow an increase in the jellyfish populations. And then during an ice age, when the jellyfish populations decrease, sea turtles begin to birth more males, thus beginning the reduction of their population to maintain a balance with the food supply.
This is freshman biology folks. This is science. Blaming everything on GW is NOT science.
The main cause of the coral reef die offs, is NOT global warming, but pesticides and agricultural runoff. But global warming lets the perpetrators of the destruction of the coral reefs to go scot free.
Presently, there is a 40%-60% increase in jellyfish populations in many areas of the world. You are correct, sea turtles are one of their primary predators.
How do you increase the population of sea turtles very quickly? Choose the best answer.
a) Maintain the present 50/50 male/female population balance
b) Increase the male population to 80%, decrease the female population to 20%
c) Increase the female population to 80%, decrease the male population to 20%
Which of these would result in an increase in the number of sea turtles eggs being laid? And thus an increase in the population of sea turtles. And thus the addition of a balancing agent to the increase in jellyfish populations.
***
Now go back and read the article, and realize how very very stupid it is. Can we stop blaming everything on global warming.
Btw, did you know there is a significant increase in erectile dysfunction in human males, this too is caused by global warming.
Sea turtles under threat as majority being born are female....
THIS IS PROBABLY THE BEST NEWS WE'VE HEARD ABOUT SEA TURTLES IN YEARS!!!!
Why?
Okay, let's just use our brains. And for a moment, in order to simplify, I am going to use humans in order to reduce the variable set (as sea turtles lay batches of eggs).
Lets say there are a 100 people. What is the maximum number of new babies that can be born?
Let's say, it was a 50/50 population of male/female. The maximum with typical births is 50 babies born.
The maximum births would be achieved by a population of 99 females, and 1 male. Yes, a single fertile male human being could fertilize 99 human females (and likely enjoy it too). Giving 99 new babies, though the human race would suffer from genetic diversity issues.
The nightmare scenario is not more females being born, but more males. If we had 99 males, and only 1 female...the birth rate is 1.
What this report really points too, is a potential rebound for sea turtles. If we have 10 to 90 ration, we are looking at potentially seeing a lot lot more sea turtles. Why might this be? Okay, they blame the warmer sea temps. And they may in fact be a factor, but lets look at the standard life equation. Population increases occur when there is habitat and food. Presently, there is talk about a increase in jellyfish populations, with some regions seeing a 40%-60% increase.
http://www.isciencetimes.com/a...
This means more availability of sea turtles prime food. Okay, so now consider the correlation. More food, turtles not having to range as far, so they're staying in the warmer regions. Big glut of jellyfish, saw one article exclaim that global warming was going to cause jellyfish to take over the ocean. So now, one of the prime predators of jellyfish is setting the stage to take advantage of this jellyfish bloom.
THIS IS GREAT NEWS!!!
***
As for the coral reef die offs/bleaching. Yes, that gets blamed on global warming. However, there are a number of scientists who have said that is a mere secondary issue. The primary cause is extremely high levels of agricultural pesticides, (designed to kill arthropods and invertebrates), that are affecting the reefs - particularly off the coast of Australia.
Similar to the bee die offs, which were repeatedly blamed on global warming, until strong evidence began showing that pesticides, such as nicotides and others were largely responsible. And with both colonies (bees and coral) what we see is a conjunction of issues. Pesticides weaken the species, which become more susceptible to illnesses (parasites particularly with bees, and a herpes virus with coral reefs).
http://e360.yale.edu/features/...
https://www.realnatural.org/dy...
***
IF YOU CARE ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT, you need to STFU about global warming. Because whether it is occurring or not is irrelevant. (Trust me, the earth has been much warmer, life thrived, vegetation increased, deserts shrunk, granted human coastal villages and cities may be under water...but humans adapt.) However, global warming is being used to mask the multitude of real and threatening environmental problems.
> Deforestation used to be a topic. We've not stopped cutting down rainforests, nor looked at using rapid renewables such as hemp for paper or bamboo to replace our 2x4's.
> Pesticides and herbicides used to be a topic. Now, all the die off of species are blamed on global warming. Some of these chemicals are genetically destructive and can persist for decades, centuries, perhaps even milleniums.
> We used to talk about waste, landfills, etc. But we don't...we only talk about global warming.
Global warmin
We need to stop this, quadruple copyrights for every album.
If an artist doesn't write their own lyrics, and they create and release a song. It shouldn't be the listener who has to pay for the rights of those lyrics. That should be all handled by the artist.