What do they mean “ Recently, scientists in Japan were surprised to find a species of oval squid raised in captivity could change its coat, depending on whether its tank was clean or covered in algae.”…are they students, because I saw this described and demonstrated in 88 in my marine biology class in Hawaii….then we dissected it….then we cooked and ate it as a class. Interesting teacher.

Absolutely not the first time they’ve been “caught” doing this…maybe the first time with high definition cameras, in one specific laboratory condition, with that specific species, raised in captivity, but this is every day behavior for many cephalopods, including squid, and absolutely not a new discovery.

Let’s see them decipher the intense flashings, strobing, color waves, slow fades, etc that they use to communicate and hunt. That might be a first….but I doubt it. Others have studied their insane chromatophores and their amazingly mailable mantles and how they use them for decades if not longer.

This is a neat bit of biology, but to pretend they just discovered this is outrageously dishonest. Get real, people knew squid camouflaged themselves amazingly well long before that guy named Jesus was fathered by a forced pedophilic inception. Almost like saying scientists just discovered newts like it moist, or that water is wet.

That is a nerve pulse, not a heart beat, and any competent tech knows the difference.
A pulse starts at 6-10 weeks, the heart takes over 20 before it's a heart. Any tech that sees a heartbeat at 6 weeks needs retraining....There's NO FUCKING HEART TO BEAT!

No, doctors do not relay 100% of what the tech writes...have you ever had one?! I've had a few. They also edit, even reject reports that have errors. Claiming they see a heart beating at 6 weeks would be an error, a grievous error.

Mom dragged me to work and I met ultrasound techs (among other medical professionals). That's what you asked, how many I had met. You fucking asked, moron. Why did YOU ask how many I had met if it's irrelevant?! You're a fucking two year old.

Take your meds....you've lost your fucking mind, you're over triggered, and you took too much meth last night. Try again when you can string a rational thought together.

You're talking about techs knowing more than the doctors because they see the scans daily....but they don't see hearts on those scans, they see a microscopic twitch in a few cells.

Hands on knowledge?....more than you, I passed biology (up to advanced molecular organic chemistry, you never even dissected anything I would guess)). Those with hands on knowledge and medical training say there's no heartbeat with no heart, and no heart until over 20 weeks after conception.

If you are implying I I should shut the fuck up because (you assume) I have no first hand experience seeing 6 week old cell clusters twitch, why are you talking about anything? You not only have no experience, but you have no knowledge, no education, no clue.
I've at least seen multiple videos of such "twitches", which is all one sees in person, and there's barely even a tube, there's not one structure of a heart formed, and there's absolutely not a functional heart for months by anyone's theory.

Triggered much?!

Are you afraid they would abduct and dissect you?


Let me explain the stupidity.
Right wingers want to reopen all businesses especially resturaunts, virus or not, asap
Low wage businesses like restaurants can't reopen because low wage workers aren't returning. Thousands of immigrants that 4 years ago would have been granted refugee status would LOVE to serve you for minimum wage or less and pay taxes, but work visas and refugee status have all but disappeared under Trump and Biden hasn't fixed that yet.

The right's position as I understand it, get us back to work fast, but for fucks sake don't give visas to brown skinned low wage workers to get it done. True story!!

Side note- The southern border states were once Mexico, so we are the alien invaders here, not Mexicans.

So now it’s one hour. Consistency, bob. You lack it.

Yes...but 5 second clips out of context are all you’ve been fed for the last 5 years....just as your statement about Biden tripping suggests, because it is a non story on real news, mentioned but not dissected to imply he’s on deaths door. Trump made his ramp crawl a story by denying it and claiming he ran down the ramp unassisted, without the denial it would have been a nothing burger....Thanks to Trump's dumb denial it became a story about his health AND his lack of honesty.

Don’t make up lies, Bob. I’ve never “secretly agreed” Biden isn’t presidential, I’ve said he’s not the best Democrats had to offer. You are the one who is consistently inconsistent between your private conversations and public ones, that’s why I won’t talk to you in private anymore. In private, you can occasionally be rational and honest, but then publicly you are bat shit crazy and contradict your private positions. That’s not me, it’s you, buddy.

No sir, Trump and right wing media are far more likely to be outright lying to you than telling the truth, something like 90% lies 5% misdirection and 5% truth...main stream media is closer to 90% truth, 5% misdirection and 5% lies or mistakes they retract when caught. It’s nothing similar. Right wing media excuses this by saying they are 90% opinion and only 5-10% news, and they have no obligation to tell the truth on their opinion programs. Indeed, they've successfully argued in court that no reasonable person could possibly think they were ever telling the truth so they aren't responsible for their lies. Main stream media doesn’t do that, they are maybe 20% opinion shows that actually do care if they’re correct and voluntarily correct themselves often and 80% actual news that follow ethical guidelines absolutely missing on right wing media.

For instance, you don’t see footage from clan rallies presented as Trump rallies on CNN, but Fox OANN and Newsmax all replayed year old riots in the Midwest labeled as Portland burning all summer, photoshopping armed ANTIFA into the fake pictures to scare you into voting out of fear of the terrifying black man, and lied to you claiming ANTIFA, the anarchist movement, is somehow part of the Democratic Party of big government and also in cahoots with BLM so much your ilk use ANTIFA and BLM as interchangeable terms....and you believe every word without question.
You don't see main stream media pretending there was massive election fraud based on nothing but the word of consummate liars, actually accusing American companies of being foreign entities run by America's long dead enemies in efforts to invalidate an election. You don't see them pretending a DOJ rule that denies a prosecutor the ability to press charges against the president explained as proof and official verification of his innocence on main stream media.
The right spread the absolute lies about vote fraud for so long they are being sued for billions and have convinced their viewers a dictator dead for a decade personally stole the election from their guy (who received 8 million fewer votes, and who’s never won an election by getting more votes).
If right wing media were held to the same standards as real news media not one right wing outlet would still exist.

*quality dissection of what "a few bad apples" means in context.
This entire crop is spoiled, tainted by the toxic sludge oozing from the bad apple at the top all the way down.

Are there some police, even most, who would never attack citizens, arrest someone they know to be innocent based on race, or falsify charges? Absolutely. Unfortunately there's a statistical vacuum when it comes to policing themselves. That makes them all accessories after the crime under the law, and as a fact.
The bad apples couldn't represent the police if the police fired them with permanent nationwide records so they can't just move to the next police force after being fired for crimes. Instead they shield and hide those rotting apples behind their blue wall, tainting themselves in the process.

When I see an Apple going bad, I throw it out immediately...I don't wait until it's become slimy and furry, spoiling all my fruit.

this right here is what drives me absolutely bonkers.

you proceed from a false premise:
that "wealth" translates to being less corruptible.

blindly ignoring what wealth actual not only IS,but what it represents to the elite class in America.

power.

so could we please STOP with how much trump is actually worth,as if it has any inherent meaning in terms of power?


i do not understand wasting time with an ideologue,or dissecting his obviously conflicting comments as somehow expressing a clear and definable philosophy.these people play in the realm of cult of personality,spectacle and magical thinking.

their adoration for a particular public figure is cultish,and has very little to do with reality but more how their idol represents an ideal that they feel very strongly about.

so are we really surprised that bob will give Alexandria ocasio cortez a nod for exposing how easy it is to corrupt the system,but then conveniently excuse his idol and give him a pass based on the flimsiest of reasons:wealth.

when it was Alexandria ocasio cortez's lightning round that exposed how it is actually EASIER for the executive branch and the president to sell their influence for money.

but to bob,and how he sees things,the very idea that trump would ever engage in a breach of morality,and break his promise to the American people...is preposterous,...because trump already has money,why would he sell his integrity?

because BOB has integrity.
because BOB would never break a promise.
this is basic projection of ones morality onto a figure they admire.
we can apply the exact same metric to those who voted for Obama.same thing.same results.

you will never get bob to admonish his hero,because that hero represents the IDEA of what bob is projecting,not the actual reality.

fundamentalists engage in the exact same magical thinking.

so how can i get mad for bob,and the other trumpsters of the world?
i pity them.
because delusional dreams always crash on the shores of the real eventually.

and that is going to be a sad day for bob.

jesus christ some people have to much time on there hands.

I pretty much dissected each zone. It is actually not any feat of programming, but simply utilizing good video effects many people have forgotten about. Under the core of the setup, the lights are mapped in 2d space in a program and then a bit map image or video playing over it can control what the lights look like every second. This is the same software video billboards use (Translating a video or image to lights mapped in a 2d space).

All the person had to do was setup his video files. A very efficent way of doing complex video effects to a pixel based light project. What was great is I saw a lot of old Demoscene (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demoscene) stuff like plasma and color cycling. Brings back memories.

Funny, but flawed it's own way.

Let me preface this commentary by saying I am not in any organized religion. I go back and forth in believing in God and also not being able to find proof he exists, basically an agnostic theist. So this is not in any way an attempt to 'prove' anything other than that I disagree with the way the video is portraying the biblical tale. I also know there are far more egregious examples than this story of God as an uncaring, flawed being with an uncertain temperament.

First, this story is one of the 'go to' stories that most atheists or anti-religion people look to for a clear example of the 'wrongness' of the bible or God. The reason is, if you don't take anything else into context, this story is massively damning! What god would call for a mass genocide out of the blue, right? Certainly not one people consider to be good!

But, if we look at the context of the bible in the Old Testament, we see that this is not wholly out of line for the character shown of God. If we take the statements of the bible as literal, then God has already shown he will destroy any threat to those he considers his 'chosen people'; even those who are/were part of that group.

In this case, the Amalekites were descendants of Esau. Esau was the brother of Jacob (later named Israel) and was supposed to inherit the blessing of his father, as well as command over the 'chosen people' of God. Esau was of rough nature and was a hunter. Once he was starving and went to Jacob, who tended the fields (sort of the Cain and Abel bit all over again), begging him for a bowl of lentil soup. Jacob told him that he would give him the bowl if Esau would pass his birthright (blessing and command) over to Jacob, since obviously Jacob was more able to care for his people than a solitary hunter. Esau agreed, but never really meant it, he was just hungry and was willing to say whatever he needed to so as to get that soup.

Jacob was dead serious though, so he took the birthright and became Israel, the leader of God's chosen. Esau was livid and swore to murder Jacob, who fled. Esau never got the birthright back, but he did sire the people who became the Amalekites, who in turn swore vengeance on Israel-ites.

This becomes important as time goes on, because basically every single time the groups encountered one another, the Israelites tried to be peaceful but the Amalekites always attacked.

By the time Saul was king, God chose to have him go and destroy the Amalekites, deeming them beyond saving. As he had told Moses during the first Amalekite attacks, he had Samuel tell Saul to blot their memory from history, wiping them out completely. Saul chose not to do this, sparing their king and some animals. Because of this, God replaced Saul with David.

So, now we come to the main part of the discussion. Like I said, this story is used quite often to show the capricious nature of God. However, like I said, it uses the story out of context. Now that we have the 'historical' description of the origin and ongoing nature of the conflict, we can put it into context.

If you are going to dissect the nature of 'God' as shown in the Old Testament, you have to look at the information given to show that nature. The bible says he is all-knowing, but it also says that he gave mankind free will. If you look on God as more of a creature running a simulation, he hopes that humanity will come to follow his rules of their own accord, even though he knows many will not. He chooses Israel and his descendants to be his 'messengers' to the other people that have chosen not to follow his rules, basically they are his missionaries that he hopes will lead his simulation to the proper conclusion.

Any group or race that tries to eradicate his messengers is a threat to his simulation, so he eventually will deal with them harshly. Sodom and Gomorrah, The Great Flood, and other examples of God deciding that he needs to protect his 'messengers' and clear off the playing board. In the case of the Amalekites, by this time period mentioned in the story, we are talking about generations of them trying to destroy the Israelites. So, God tells Samuel to tell Saul that they must be wiped from the playing board. Saul exercises his free will, therefore David enters the picture.

If you look at free will and God's choice of his messengers, as well as his protection of them, you get this story situation. By telling Saul to wipe them out, God is saying that he has tried to look the other way, but the Amalekites will never stop as long as they exist. Therefore they must be dealt with in a manner that will prevent them from rising as a people in the future and attempting harm to his messengers again.

It still doesn't paint God in a perfect light, but makes him more of a tinkerer. He keeps creating flawed inventions that choose to follow their own path and not his. The sad thing is, if you assume that he is all knowing, he knows this is going to be the end result. He creates angels and they turn on him. He creates humans and they turn on him. Then he creates Jesus, a combination of god and human, who doesn't turn on him. It is almost like he decides to create a Hero unit that can show the other simulations an easier path to winning.

Realistically and analytically, I know it doesn't make perfect sense. That is why I have my struggles with wanting to believe and then not being able to logically. If you choose to look at God as being a flawed creature (again, assuming that you believe he exists), the whole thing sort of makes more sense. In any case, we all have our own opinions and beliefs. I hope that my wordy post has explained how I try to work through mine.

@bobknight33
why is @newtboy a dumb fuck?

for pointing out that historically suicide bombers have not been exclusively muslim.newt is not disagreeing that radical islamic suicide bombers exist,he is simply pointing out that the practice of bombing in the name of religion is not an exclusively muslim practice when viewed through the lens of history.

the problem is NOT exclusively the religion of islam,the problem is fundamentalist thinking.so while at this point in history it is islam that is the theology that is twisted for a sinister and destructive purpose,the same justifications can be found in ALL religions,predominantly from the abrahmic:judaism,muslim and christianity.

this is not a simple issue,there are many factors to be considered on why people will strap a bomb to their chests and walk into a crowded cafe and blow themselves up.

factors such as:education,employment,community,family structures and most of all...hope.we need hope.all of us need hope but when conditions for normal people are so oppressive and hopeless,people will seek to find hope anywhere,which can be in the form of religion.

look,
words are inert,they are meaningless until someone reads those words..and then interprets them.

this is particularly true when addressing religion.
if you are a violent person,then your religion will be violent.
if you are peaceful and loving,then your religion will be peaceful.

no matter which sacred text you adhere to,be it the quran,the bible or the torah.you will find justification for any and all acts you choose to engage in,be it violent or peaceful.

and THAT is what sargon is addressing!
sargon is dissecting the apologetics of those who are just not getting the plot.radical islam is a problem,a big problem,and attempting to dismiss the underlying factors in order to make a more "palatable" explanation is wading into dangerous waters.

so we can understand the politics and motivation of a young man from palestine who straps explosives to his chest and blows himself up taking innocent civilians with him.we can look at the events that led up to that grievous choice.we know,because there is historical record,how badly the palestinian people are being treated,and have been for decades.the young man was stripped of hope,and the only solace he found was in the quran and so began his radicalization.

it is the politics that always,and i mean ALWAYS,sets the stage but it is the religion that lays out the justification.

which is what newt was basically talking about.
we can use the exact same calculus for fundamentalist christians,or zionist jews.

think about it,how many radicalized muslims live in america?
how many?
deerborn michigan has the largest muslim community in america.now go look at how many suicide bombers are born from that region.
notice anything?

politics is the fuel,religion is the match.

some here may take issue with sargon's take on this situation,but he is making valid points in regards to how some people (mainly on the left) engage in apologetics,while ignoring the larger implications.

if we,as a species,wish to curb the tide of religious fundamentalism and the radicalization of whole communities.then we need to address the politics first and foremost.otherwise this "war on terror" will become never-ending.because the "war on terror' is actually on "war on ideas",really bad ideas,predicated on even worse politics.

today it is islam.
tomorrow it may be christianity,and there is a whole army of fundamentalist and dominionist christians just waiting to be called for their "holy war".

or should i just call it "christian jihad".

@ChaosEngine
it was a quote from a movie,but THANKS CE..thanks for dissecting my smart ass comment fucker!

@Babymech
jesus holy christ...

were you truly unable to discern my tongue firmly planted in cheek?

and then take issue with pay gap discrimination?
ok-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Pay_Act_of_1963

/cue rainbow

which you may take issue that i used wiki as a reference,which is pretty much your counter-position to my links.

which is just utter weak sauce.

oh that study was by a conservative think tank and therefore they have an "agenda".nevermind that christina hoff sommers is a feminist,nevermind that you didnt refute the numbers..lets just stick with "agenda" to refute any and all statistics that do not coincide with your narrative.

should i gather by implication that christian hoff sommers is not a feminsist?even though she identifies as one? or is she just the "wrong" kind of feminist?

come on man,are you really that blinded by your own bullshit?

and then you proudly attempted to dissect the rest of my comment taking positions i never took,but was rather using to express that in much of our dialogue..i was fucking agreeing with you.

you literally wrote one big,massive and utterly useless straw man.while i was actually trying to have a conversation.i may have indulged in some smart assery but that is mainly due to my perception of you.that i respected you enough not to treat you like a precious little flower or some fragile snowflake.

maybe you see this is as a right/wrong dynamic.

but here is the cold,hard truth:context matters.
and if you insist on viewing this situation in such a narrow and myopic way,the larger context will ALWAYS be unavailable to you.

so until you are ready to evaluate,without bias,new information.that may possibly contradict your current narrative,then you will always be stuck in your own self-delusion.

you were challenged.
your response was lack luster and a straw man.
and i can only assume by your words that any contrary evidence or contradictory opinions that may conflict with your own will be met with similar straw men,presumptions,deflecting and goal post moving.

because if ya cant beat em,
berate and belittle them.

You have the power to *NSFW, correct? But in all seriousness, animal butchery is not particularly NSFW. We chop up frogs at school with prepubescent children, and medical students watch brains dissected. Point is, until the reason is known I abstain from a certain judgment towards these people. I have respect for the camel regardless, as it shows that the camel is not so weak and harmless as people oft think of them. But camel lives, camel dies. I feel bad for it if it is torture, otherwise it is as natural as anything else of nature.

With that said, respect for the animal is paramount.

Ugh, listening to politicians regarding issues like this seems like such a waste of time. I'd prefer if i could hear the pros and cons by someone less biased. I trust nothing these two say. As if politicians know anything beyond talking points. I hate having to try and dissect and pick out good information from bullshit.

grumble grumble

Yes, I was wondering when you would trot out Hooker's paper and the 'CDC whistleblower" bit. You see, in the lack of clear scientific fact, conspiracy theorists tend to grab whatever they can to prove that they are right. I'll dissect your attempt right now.

First, Hooker's paper was covering the data involving African-American children with supposed predilection towards autism. The sample size was small, the math was ludicrous, and he incorrectly analyzed a cohort study. Because of the NUMEROUS failures to appropriately conduct a true scientific study, his paper was retracted. So, when exposed to the light, his theory was decidedly lacking in content and was canned.

http://retractionwatch.com/2014/08/27/journal-takes-down-autism-vaccine-paper-pending-investigation/

This incompetent study was the result, allegedly, of discussions between Hooker and a senior psychologist at the CDC named William Thompson. Hooker then teamed up with Andrew Wakefield to cherry pick bits to make it sound as though Thompson were confessing to some horrible crime of data manipulation to hide this “bombshell” result reported by Wakefield. Thus was born the “CDC whistleblower".

In February 2010, the General Medical Council in the U.K. recommended that Wakefield be stripped of his license to practice medicine in the U.K. because of scientific misconduct related to his infamous 1998 case series published in The Lancet, even going so far as to refer to him as irresponsible and dishonest, and in May 2010 he was. He is a now doing everything he can to prove his theories, like possibly illegal recording of conversations, so that he can regain some credibility. The guy is a hack.

Thompson has admitted to being prone to anxiety disorders, being delusional, and has shown that he is more scared of being 'the bad guy' then doing his job. His career is pretty much finished at the CDC, because he has shown that he will waffle if confronted by angry people who can't understand science. I feel sorry for him, but he has issues.

So, now we can address your link. A congressman, not a scientist, has received information from people who have been laughed out of the scientific community for multiple reasons. He sees buzzwords and decides to get ahead of the bandwagon, calling for further investigation and research. I can, of course, show you knee-jerk reactions by multiple members of congress similar to this, like Ted Cruz calling for immediate investigation into Planned Parenthood over the recent videos. You know, the ones that were chopped and spliced together to make it sound like PP was selling aborted babies? Do you see a pattern with the chop and splice for sensationalism? I hope you do.

In other words, you don't have any scientific facts. Like all anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorists, you rely on a few items that seem to tie together to form a true fact, but they don't. When confronted with this, you will say that it's all big pharma and money trails, etc. Do you not see the fallacy in that logic? It's like saying that the the earth was created 9000 years ago...because RELIGION!

Btw, if you want to place your trust in politicians trying to be scientists, I leave you with this gem from former congressman Paul Broun.

"You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I've found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I don't believe that the earth's but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That's what the Bible says."

I didn't do medicine so I can't be certain, but a fair amount of my syllabus seemed to be a useful foundation for medicine. I didn't dissect any frogs, we did pigs hearts and rats mind. I also learned a lot of practical things from biology, in fact it was one of the more practical and "relevant to everyday life" subjects I took.

Oh, and I still think there is value to the purely academic stuff. I learned an awful lot of things which I have had no practical use for but are nonetheless precious to me. Truly I pity those who have no appetite for it. Perhaps I was always this way, I don't know, but I'm still a firm in my belief that all that inconsequential arcana has enriched my life and that school had a large part in nurturing it.