Random News not worthy of own thread

[clakclak]

A disgusting human being drives a car crashes it and than lifestreams the death of her sister without even trying to help her, saying "My sister is dying I do not give a f**k". https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/tru ... 67f343e5bd

[muppetts]

While not the same it reminds me of the gun 'stunt' death for you tube, the youth are becoming dissociated from the here and now, real life, they are so obsessed with the concept of being accepted in the online world (nothing new there, it was the same 50 years ago, just different events, begin the jock or homecoming queen etc) that they are losing touch with what is happening around them.

See any concert, people are there LIVE but spend 90% of their time looking at it through their phones while they record.

Very sad events.

[Morkonan]

... "My sister is dying I do not give a f**k". ...

This is why parents should be required to have a license before becoming parents. They should also be taught how to properly beat their children in order to force them to pay friggin attention to what is "right" and what is "wrong"...

Here's a real butt-clencher - http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/26/us/florid ... index.html

Yeah... These ingrates video'ed a man drowning, catcalling him the whole time and laughing it up. Then, they posted the videe after a few days while the man's body just sat there in the lake.

I'm sure they'll all turn out to be model citizens and their parents will be so very proud of them. Or not.

[muppetts]

While it is hard to fathom why some people are so removed from moral reality, I suggest that casual violence, in order to 'beat' a moral code into them may produce....mixed results.

[Morkonan]

While it is hard to fathom why some people are so removed from moral reality, I suggest that casual violence, in order to 'beat' a moral code into them may produce....mixed results.

Well, I'd rather them take them to church... But, I think more people would be outraged, these days, if someone suggested that than if they suggested corporal punishment.

[jlehtone]

Well, I'd rather them take them to church... But, I think more people would be outraged, these days, if someone suggested that than if they suggested corporal punishment.

Just make sure that thet they understand that the word "church" is a mere placeholder for whichever location their belief system considers equivalent.

[Morkonan]

Well, I'd rather them take them to church... But, I think more people would be outraged, these days, if someone suggested that than if they suggested corporal punishment.

Just make sure that thet they understand that the word "church" is a mere placeholder for whichever location their belief system considers equivalent.

Some social system that reinforces common mores associated with "Good" and discourages those things which are largely considered "Evil." - Fix't

[Tracker001]

Jenny Jones baking . The Dough https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKFhIRvBHMQ

[Morkonan]

Jenny Jones baking . The Dough https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKFhIRvBHMQ

Terribly inappropriate reply - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZD71JeX4Vk0

I just couldn't help myself.

[muppetts]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/arkansas-man ... 56591.html

Donkey, actually more than one

[Bishop149]

I dunno if I already posted that nodosaur they found a few months ago. If not I should have, the level of preservation is stunning it could easily be taken for a statue of a dinosaur.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... source=twb

Well the paper on it is out, and its open access so you can all have a look without the usual screen of: "interpreted by the media from a press release"
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/ful ... %2930808-4

Brief summary;

Such well preserved skin etc (technical term is integument, which basically means all tissues that form the outer covering of an animal) obviously tells us quite a lot about scale patterns, possibly growth characteristics to.

It shows counter shading, darker pigment on the upper surfaces and a lighter underbelly. They claim the upper colouring was reddish and whilst I'm no expert and the tests they done seem excellent I'd still imagine there's a bit of supposition here. Basically because you can't go and do the best possible confirmation experiment: fossilise a bunch of pigments of known colour and then see what the mass spec traces of those are.

The counter-shading is a camouflage adaptation common in smaller prey species (in fact correlating with size), any modern animal the size of this thing doesn't need to bother with it. . . . the fact this does implies it is being routinely predated by some pretty bloody large and powerful predators. Perhaps moving the "Large carnivorous theropods were more scavengers than predators" argument back in favour of the predators.

[Morkonan]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/arkansas-man ... 56591.html

Donkey, actually more than one

See? Don't smoke marijuana kids, it makes you @$!$@ donkeys!

Then again, don't drink alcohol either, 'cause it makes you @$@$% pigs... I am not a proud man.

At least he brought them dinner, though, so that's something.

[Morkonan]

...
The counter-shading is a camouflage adaptation common in smaller prey species (in fact correlating with size), any modern animal the size of this thing doesn't need to bother with it. . . . the fact this does implies it is being routinely predated by some pretty bloody large and powerful predators. Perhaps moving the "Large carnivorous theropods were more scavengers than predators" argument back in favour of the predators.

Some of that can be a holdover from juvenile camouflage adaptions. There's also common protections against harmful sunlight, considering the animal didn't have fur for such. And... there's sexual selection to consider as well. IOW - It doesn't have to only be due to ongoing evolutionary forcers caused by predation. It's likely they did have predators though. (Oh, to have a time machine, just to be sure about all these things. )

[clakclak]

A sad reminder that slavery especially sex-slavery isn't gone from this world and is not even gone from Europe (or the developed world to be more generell).



At least this story had a happy ending. Most don't: I feared for my life, says U.K. model kidnapped for sale as sex slave


If you think this is not a problem in your country think again. It is a problem in every country. To give an example for my home country it is assumed that there are currently 14.500 people living as slaves in Germany. Most of these slave are woman living in forced marriages and/or forced prostitution.

[burger1]

A sad reminder that slavery especially sex-slavery isn't gone from this world and is not even gone from Europe (or the developed world to be more generell).



At least this story had a happy ending. Most don't: I feared for my life, says U.K. model kidnapped for sale as sex slave


If you think this is not a problem in your country think again. It is a problem in every country. To give an example for my home country it is assumed that there are currently 14.500 people living as slaves in Germany. Most of these slave are woman living in forced marriages and/or forced prostitution.

There's still slave auctions in some countries. Saudi Arabia being one of course.

[clakclak]

A sad reminder that slavery especially sex-slavery isn't gone from this world and is not even gone from Europe (or the developed world to be more generell).



At least this story had a happy ending. Most don't: I feared for my life, says U.K. model kidnapped for sale as sex slave


If you think this is not a problem in your country think again. It is a problem in every country. To give an example for my home country it is assumed that there are currently 14.500 people living as slaves in Germany. Most of these slave are woman living in forced marriages and/or forced prostitution.

There's still slave auctions in some countries. Saudi Arabia being one of course.

Of course there are.

According to the global slavery Indexthere are currently ruffly 45.8 slaves on this planet.

Here is a map that links to individual studies about different countries (simply click on a country) and give an idea where the most slaves live: https://www.globalslaveryindex.org/index/#

Here is a short introduction on what the UNESCO says about modern day slavery: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and ... f-slavery/

Here is Guardian video about brick slaves in Russia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X199Of0qoSM

Here is a short video about Quatars world cup slaves: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6yoBcEXwmQ

Here is an interview with a Bulgarian victim of sex-slavery who was trafficked to Belgium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U21GF3047cg

Here is an article about forced prostitution in Germany: Germany has become a "center for the sexual exploitation of young women from Eastern Europe, as well as a sphere of activity for organized crime groups from around the world," says Manfred Paulus, a retired chief detective from the southern city of Ulm.


Here is an article about North Korean slaves working in Russia: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/worl ... rants.html

Here is a investigative journalism piece about slavery in the UK: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKoeUxvijRA

Here is an article about the slave markets of Libya: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... -migration

And one about slave markets in ISIS controlled areas: http://ahtribune.com/world/north-africa ... laves.html

I could go on for days, maybe weeks. And that is the problem. But it seems to be mostly ignored. Stopping slavery should be among our number 1 priorities but nobody seems to care. I know we can not care about everything, but modern day slavery is a worldwide phaenomenon. There are few things I can think of being worse than a slave. The word alone is repulsive because of what it implies, yet we seem unable to really do anything about it.


EDIT: Maybe our indifference comes from this being sutch an uncomfortable topic to talk about.

[burger1]

I guess Amsterdam's not afraid of exploiting people. 2014 news article.


Amsterdam alcoholics paid in beer for collecting litter

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-25548061

[Bishop149]

Some of that can be a holdover from juvenile camouflage adaptions. There's also common protections against harmful sunlight, considering the animal didn't have fur for such. And... there's sexual selection to consider as well. IOW - It doesn't have to only be due to ongoing evolutionary forcers caused by predation. It's likely they did have predators though. (Oh, to have a time machine, just to be sure about all these things. )

The juvenile idea is interesting and not something I's considered. Evolving a change in colouration from Juvenile to adult would have a cost and thus any such change must have been advantageous to the adult. . . . its hard to imagine how losing countershading would be especially beneficial so you might be on to something.

However, from what I know about very large modern animals, whilst their babies are more venerable they do not normally adapt to that by camouflage etc. The primary anti-predation mechanism in such animals is to rely upon the larger adults to provide defence. . . . especially as many such animals live in groups.
Obviously we'll probably never know any of this for sure re: long extinct taxa but its fun to speculate on the evidence that is available. Indeed doing so is many people's entire career, which is a cool life to have.

New topic

"Helicopter sex film"

Edit: Weirdly related as it also involves the perils of sunbathing naked. . . . personally I'd take the hazard of pervo-copper-copter* over the below any day.
http://www.suffolkgazette.com/news/seagull-testicle/

Edit2: I got that story from my "zoologist twitter" who are all now doubting that a gull could do that, certainly not quickly. Current theory is: Deeply embarrassing real explanation / "Blame a gull!" excuse thought up on the spot.

*I should sell that to the Sun as a headline.

[Morkonan]

The juvenile idea is interesting and not something I's considered. Evolving a change in colouration from Juvenile to adult would have a cost and thus any such change must have been advantageous to the adult. . . . its hard to imagine how losing countershading would be especially beneficial so you might be on to something.

However, from what I know about very large modern animals, whilst their babies are more venerable they do not normally adapt to that by camouflage etc. The primary anti-predation mechanism in such animals is to rely upon the larger adults to provide defence. . . . especially as many such animals live in groups.
Obviously we'll probably never know any of this for sure re: long extinct taxa but its fun to speculate on the evidence that is available. Indeed doing so is many people's entire career, which is a cool life to have....

Exactly so - Animal social behavior plays a significant role in survival. After all, that's why the behavior exists, presumably. i suppose that we can say that there is a reason for that countershading, we just don't know exactly what it is. We know it has definite camouflage advantages in other species and we can assume, under similar conditions, it would have the same advantages for this species.

One thing I've become more interested in, recently, is sexual selection. IOW, the impact of sexual selection for appealing/atttractive/something traits in animal species. There are certainly sexually selected traits that are selected for because they're evolutionarily reinforced. (ie: Bigger, stronger, males being sexually selected for due to reinforcement of survival attributes.) BUT, there are some traits that don't appear to have any other purpose than to be sexually selected for. Many bird species have these, for instance.

But, more importantly, humans have these and sexual selection may have played a much larger role in human diversity than any environmental or evolutionary reinforced attribute. For instance, skin color may be more of a sexually selected trait than any environmental influence. I find that fascinating, so have been drifting towards that when thinking about previously unexplained traits. Probably a bit too much, but it opens up other avenues of thought.

[Bishop149]

One thing I've become more interested in, recently, is sexual selection. IOW, the impact of sexual selection for appealing/atttractive/something traits in animal species. There are certainly sexually selected traits that are selected for because they're evolutionarily reinforced. (ie: Bigger, stronger, males being sexually selected for due to reinforcement of survival attributes.) BUT, there are some traits that don't appear to have any other purpose than to be sexually selected for. Many bird species have these, for instance.

Yep sexual selection can be absolutely crazy, especially when it becomes "run away sexual selection". A commonly studied organism for it is stalk eyed flies. The feature that gives them that name is under very strong sexual selection, the Male eye stalks are now routinely so long that their vision is severely impaired. So the sexual attraction benefit outweighs the ability to see!
Seeing as you bring up birds, there was a wonderful study in which a researcher was studying mate preference in one species. About half way through the study all the results and emerging trends started to go haywire. After much investigation it seems the females had (half way through the study) started to make their mate choice based mostly on the colour of the leg rings the researcher was using to identify the individuals. This lead to a whole bunch of (often quite funny) follow-up experiments in which she attached a whole bunch of other arbitrary artificial characters to males to see if they were selected too. . . . they were IIRC. It seems female birds (of this species at least) had a generalised preference for "Wow that's weird / different"

Back to dinosaurs*, there is a big debate about sexual selection in relation to them seeing as large amounts of it is pretty common in birds. Unfortunately even in the most elaborately selected bird species the skeletal difference between the sexes is minimal, so its likely the selected characters would be soft tissue based and thus would not fossilise well.

But, more importantly, humans have these and sexual selection may have played a much larger role in human diversity than any environmental or evolutionary reinforced attribute. For instance, skin color may be more of a sexually selected trait than any environmental influence. I find that fascinating, so have been drifting towards that when thinking about previously unexplained traits. Probably a bit too much, but it opens up other avenues of thought.

Hmmm now you're playing with fire.
Whilst its a perfect valid field of study the origins of race and related evolution is a deeply thorny subject. Mix in sexual selection and boy you're gonna get some trouble. Consider that a disclaimer for the following.

Within highly multi-ethnic societies (remember those might be the norm for someone like me living in a London but are generally v.rare world wide) if mate choice was totally free, race as a concept would vanish within a small number of generations. This obviously hasn't happened, and there is definitely a preference of people to select a partner from their own race. But humans are complicated, that choice would all be mixed up with a whole bunch of cultural factors.

Generally speaking it's thought human races evolved pretty much exactly like the beginnings of a speciation. Reproductive isolation, genetic drift, some adaptation (maybe, not really enough time for anything major) and founder effects. I haven't heard sexual selection being put forward as a strong argument but it's probably in there somewhere. In regard to founder effects its thought that the entire European radiation of H.sapians went through a really quite dramatic population bottleneck at some point (we're talking less than 50 individuals, possibly in the teens) and that many Caucasian racial features are largely a result of that single chance event.

*BTW its becoming increasingly common in the technical literature to refer to things most ppl probably think of as a "dinosaur" as a "non-avian dinosaur". It now being widely accepted that modern birds are definitely nested within the group "Dinosauria" and thus its perfectly valid to call then dinosaurs.