This one is kind of a tough one to tackle. First of while a single crab can lay hundreds of thousands of eggs at a time, ober 98% of the young will never survive. This is because when they hatch, crabs go through a neoplanktonic period. This means that the larva just drift around like little bits of plankton. This makes them prey to larger fish and perhaps even some zooplankton.
Whether or not they can reach as far south as Gibraltar is unclear to me. They seem to be a very cold water type creature. I don't think that King crab have spread down to say Washington or Oregon (at least I haven't heard of it happening). This can be because of diffences in water temperature, or perhaps because of the direction of the currents which might prevent to larva from drifting that far.
One of the things that we learn in the introductory level oceanography is that whenever a species in introduced, you run into some major problems. Once you reach the 400 level courses then the discussion becomes a little less black and white in some cases. There is a very small train of thought that in some cases, an introduced species can increase biodiversity in an ecosystem. One of the things that can happen when a species in introduced is that not only does that environment change, but also the species itself changes. I believe down in Oregon, a species of copepod from the western pacific had been introduced. It's moving up the Columbia river and is actually out performing the indigenous species. However you start to notice that there are some differences between this new species when it first arrived to the its present form, probably from cross breeding.
Once we start moving into even smaller organisms, things get a lot more complicated. One of the things that we learned in Special Topics Ocean Biology is that the ocean is full of viruses that can create lateral gene transfer in organisms which can lead to the developement of new species.
Yeah, it's pretty tough to follow. In fact the parties tend to switch places almost once every century. Of course prior to the Civil War, things were a lot more different in terms of the political climate. The present two party system didn't exist. In fact there were nearly half a dozen prominent political parties. This kind of leads to my belief that both the Republican party and Democratic party have become too big to effectively run. They swallowed up too many other ideologies and interests that one good idea within one party can't pull through because it has an attachment that really sucks.
I suppose that's one possibility. However I have serious doubts about it. As far as I can tell, there is no real evidence that the Republicans were ever really for supporting minorities. In fact the Irish immigrants still got shafted in the North during the Civil War, leading to the draft riots in New York city and the US Navy shelling the rioters. As it was, Lincoln wasn't exactly for freeing the slaves either (at least not directly), especially if it meant leading to a civil war. However, the Democrats painted him as such. Even when he did free the slaves, it was only the slaves in the south that were freed. In northern states like Marland and Kentucky where slavery still existed, they were not included in the Emancipation Proclomation. From an even broader point of view, unless you were of anglo saxon origin, you were pretty much shafted. Germans, Irish, Italians, Eastern Europeans all got the short end of the stick when they came to the US. To further complicate matters, the Democrats in the south purposely courted the freed slave votes for the purpose of keeping them under their thumbs.
Can someone explain to me why hasn't the term "Democrat" been attributed to bigotry and slave owners. Instead, it is almost synonymous with being champions of the minority. The American Civil War has become a symbol for the end of slavery in the United States, and yet the Democrats essentially were the leadership of the Confederacy. Most of the people in the south were farmers and for the most part they didn't care about the fate of the slaves since they couldn't afford to own any in the first place. It was the Democratic congressmen and senators who ultimately cared about keeping slavery since many of them owned slaves. After the Civil War, the Democrats fought to prevent the reconstruction of the south which also meant fighting to prevent the Federal government from enforcing the laws that protected the freed slave's right to vote. With the failure of reconstruction, so went the protection in the south of the freed slaves' vote. This remained the case well into the 20th century. So why is it that the "Democrat" is considered champion of the minority instead of racist slave owner?
"Comparing rednecks to parasites, leaches, and any other disgusting foul creature is an insult to parasites, leaches, and any other disgusting foul creature."
I suppose being an American born Chinese and considered a redneck by many, I should take offense at this. That statement alone is a statement of bigotry.
Oh I forgot to say that in a rebellion, the goal isn't necessarily to topple of government, in fact that's very rare. The objective is to exact change in that government, by forcing the people to see a certain point of view that probably hasn't gotten attention, thus making the people force the government to change through the legal/political process.
The question on whether or not gun ownership ensures freedom really isn't an easy one as far as I'm concerned. It really isn't so much a question as to whether or not a bunch of civilians with store bought guns can stand against the regular military. Conventional wisdom would say no, and I don't think there are that many people here that would question that. However, the threat is not from whether or not a militia group can stand against the military, but what the long term affects of that militia uprising is.
In fact there is precidence for this in American history. In 1786-1787, a mere 3 years after the end of the Revolution, an armed uprising led by Daniel Shays took place. It consisted mostly of farmers who were tired of crushing taxes and debts. Many farmers had to sell their land in order to pay their debts and most of the times only could sell them at less than 1/3 the market value. As a result of this loss of property, the farmers and their families were reduced to poverty and couldn't vote since there was a property requirement to vote. The farmers petitioned the state senate to issue paper money and to halt foreclosure of mortgages on their property and their own imprisonment for debt as a result of high land taxes, however the state senate failed to take action in this regard. While Massachusetts redid the credit schemes to be administered by elected officials instead of appointed officials, this was resisted and obstructed by the wealthy and other parties of influence, which were led by the governor. The armed uprising was quickly put down by the Massachusetts militia. However, the fact that the rebelion had tanken place didn't go unnoticed.
First off, the lack of a real response from officials was of concern and showed the weakness of the Federal Government. As a result, the Articles of Confederation had to be reviewed. This led to the Constitutional convention. Another result from the rebellion was that the following elections in Massachussets led to a change within the state senate which allowed the passage of measures that improved the situation of the farmers.
Another incident was the Whiskey Rebellion over the Federal dax of distilled drinks. Thie was the first time that the Federal Government actually put down a rebellion by force. While this demonstrated to the people that they must do things through peaceful means or the Government will use force, it also led to the liquor producers leaving to the western frontier, where the Government had no control. As a result, about 8 yeas later in 1802, the tax was repealed because it wasn't enforceable.
Ultimately, the purpose of an armed rebellion isn't necessarily to win, but to exact some kind of change. Rebellions are difficult to deal with even if the rebels don't even stand a chance because the effects of a brutal put down in a country with a free press are unpredictable. The government can't just let the rebels run rampant, but at the same time they risk turning them into martyrs by killing them.
Slashdot Mirror
This one is kind of a tough one to tackle. First of while a single crab can lay hundreds of thousands of eggs at a time, ober 98% of the young will never survive. This is because when they hatch, crabs go through a neoplanktonic period. This means that the larva just drift around like little bits of plankton. This makes them prey to larger fish and perhaps even some zooplankton. Whether or not they can reach as far south as Gibraltar is unclear to me. They seem to be a very cold water type creature. I don't think that King crab have spread down to say Washington or Oregon (at least I haven't heard of it happening). This can be because of diffences in water temperature, or perhaps because of the direction of the currents which might prevent to larva from drifting that far. One of the things that we learn in the introductory level oceanography is that whenever a species in introduced, you run into some major problems. Once you reach the 400 level courses then the discussion becomes a little less black and white in some cases. There is a very small train of thought that in some cases, an introduced species can increase biodiversity in an ecosystem. One of the things that can happen when a species in introduced is that not only does that environment change, but also the species itself changes. I believe down in Oregon, a species of copepod from the western pacific had been introduced. It's moving up the Columbia river and is actually out performing the indigenous species. However you start to notice that there are some differences between this new species when it first arrived to the its present form, probably from cross breeding. Once we start moving into even smaller organisms, things get a lot more complicated. One of the things that we learned in Special Topics Ocean Biology is that the ocean is full of viruses that can create lateral gene transfer in organisms which can lead to the developement of new species.
Yeah, it's pretty tough to follow. In fact the parties tend to switch places almost once every century. Of course prior to the Civil War, things were a lot more different in terms of the political climate. The present two party system didn't exist. In fact there were nearly half a dozen prominent political parties. This kind of leads to my belief that both the Republican party and Democratic party have become too big to effectively run. They swallowed up too many other ideologies and interests that one good idea within one party can't pull through because it has an attachment that really sucks.
I suppose that's one possibility. However I have serious doubts about it. As far as I can tell, there is no real evidence that the Republicans were ever really for supporting minorities. In fact the Irish immigrants still got shafted in the North during the Civil War, leading to the draft riots in New York city and the US Navy shelling the rioters. As it was, Lincoln wasn't exactly for freeing the slaves either (at least not directly), especially if it meant leading to a civil war. However, the Democrats painted him as such. Even when he did free the slaves, it was only the slaves in the south that were freed. In northern states like Marland and Kentucky where slavery still existed, they were not included in the Emancipation Proclomation. From an even broader point of view, unless you were of anglo saxon origin, you were pretty much shafted. Germans, Irish, Italians, Eastern Europeans all got the short end of the stick when they came to the US. To further complicate matters, the Democrats in the south purposely courted the freed slave votes for the purpose of keeping them under their thumbs.
Can someone explain to me why hasn't the term "Democrat" been attributed to bigotry and slave owners. Instead, it is almost synonymous with being champions of the minority. The American Civil War has become a symbol for the end of slavery in the United States, and yet the Democrats essentially were the leadership of the Confederacy. Most of the people in the south were farmers and for the most part they didn't care about the fate of the slaves since they couldn't afford to own any in the first place. It was the Democratic congressmen and senators who ultimately cared about keeping slavery since many of them owned slaves. After the Civil War, the Democrats fought to prevent the reconstruction of the south which also meant fighting to prevent the Federal government from enforcing the laws that protected the freed slave's right to vote. With the failure of reconstruction, so went the protection in the south of the freed slaves' vote. This remained the case well into the 20th century. So why is it that the "Democrat" is considered champion of the minority instead of racist slave owner?
"Comparing rednecks to parasites, leaches, and any other disgusting foul creature is an insult to parasites, leaches, and any other disgusting foul creature." I suppose being an American born Chinese and considered a redneck by many, I should take offense at this. That statement alone is a statement of bigotry.
Oh I forgot to say that in a rebellion, the goal isn't necessarily to topple of government, in fact that's very rare. The objective is to exact change in that government, by forcing the people to see a certain point of view that probably hasn't gotten attention, thus making the people force the government to change through the legal/political process.
The question on whether or not gun ownership ensures freedom really isn't an easy one as far as I'm concerned. It really isn't so much a question as to whether or not a bunch of civilians with store bought guns can stand against the regular military. Conventional wisdom would say no, and I don't think there are that many people here that would question that. However, the threat is not from whether or not a militia group can stand against the military, but what the long term affects of that militia uprising is. In fact there is precidence for this in American history. In 1786-1787, a mere 3 years after the end of the Revolution, an armed uprising led by Daniel Shays took place. It consisted mostly of farmers who were tired of crushing taxes and debts. Many farmers had to sell their land in order to pay their debts and most of the times only could sell them at less than 1/3 the market value. As a result of this loss of property, the farmers and their families were reduced to poverty and couldn't vote since there was a property requirement to vote. The farmers petitioned the state senate to issue paper money and to halt foreclosure of mortgages on their property and their own imprisonment for debt as a result of high land taxes, however the state senate failed to take action in this regard. While Massachusetts redid the credit schemes to be administered by elected officials instead of appointed officials, this was resisted and obstructed by the wealthy and other parties of influence, which were led by the governor. The armed uprising was quickly put down by the Massachusetts militia. However, the fact that the rebelion had tanken place didn't go unnoticed. First off, the lack of a real response from officials was of concern and showed the weakness of the Federal Government. As a result, the Articles of Confederation had to be reviewed. This led to the Constitutional convention. Another result from the rebellion was that the following elections in Massachussets led to a change within the state senate which allowed the passage of measures that improved the situation of the farmers. Another incident was the Whiskey Rebellion over the Federal dax of distilled drinks. Thie was the first time that the Federal Government actually put down a rebellion by force. While this demonstrated to the people that they must do things through peaceful means or the Government will use force, it also led to the liquor producers leaving to the western frontier, where the Government had no control. As a result, about 8 yeas later in 1802, the tax was repealed because it wasn't enforceable. Ultimately, the purpose of an armed rebellion isn't necessarily to win, but to exact some kind of change. Rebellions are difficult to deal with even if the rebels don't even stand a chance because the effects of a brutal put down in a country with a free press are unpredictable. The government can't just let the rebels run rampant, but at the same time they risk turning them into martyrs by killing them.