First 50 at https://tokyo3.org/forums/holiday/?main=https%3A//tokyo3.org/forums/holiday/topics/8697/

11th set of five.

Answer to 053: a failed solar system?

Response to 051: not sure what your point is but note that the number of orangutans killed by people in Borneo per year is over 1000.

dv said:

Answer to 053: a failed solar system?

Response to 051: not sure what your point is but note that the number of orangutans killed by people in Borneo per year is over 1000.

Most likely just for existing

dv said:

Answer to 053: a failed solar system?

Response to 051: not sure what your point is but note that the number of orangutans killed by people in Borneo per year is over 1000.

Bullshit. All that info is based on a misinterpretation of an ambiguous article in the New York Times.

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

Answer to 053: a failed solar system?

Response to 051: not sure what your point is but note that the number of orangutans killed by people in Borneo per year is over 1000.

Bullshit. All that info is based on a misinterpretation of an ambiguous article in the New York Times.

I don’t even know what NYT article you are referring to. You seem to be referring to some particular piece relating to the killing of pests, but that’s not what I’m talking about.

Nothing about the NYT in this study:

National Geographic News PUBLISHED NOVEMBER 16, 2011 http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/11/111115-orangutans-meat-animals-environment-science/ “The survey results suggest that between 750 and 1,790 Bornean orangutans are killed each year in Kalimantan—“high enough to pose a serious threat to the continued existence of orangutans in Kalimantan,” according to the study.”

Not only is the New York Times not a credible scientific source. I recalculated the number of Orange killed directly and indirectly by all farmers and loggers in Malaysian Borneo (the part that the article referred to) and it came to on average one orangutan per year. A completely negligible number compared to natural deaths from fights and old age.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0027491

ChrispenEvan said:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0027491

and that’s just killing, never mind the hundreds taken out of the wild for the ‘pet trade’

mollwollfumble said:

Not only is the New York Times not a credible scientific source. I recalculated the number of Orange killed directly and indirectly by all farmers and loggers in Malaysian Borneo (the part that the article referred to) and it came to on average one orangutan per year. A completely negligible number compared to natural deaths from fights and old age.

Please show working.

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

Not only is the New York Times not a credible scientific source. I recalculated the number of Orange killed directly and indirectly by all farmers and loggers in Malaysian Borneo (the part that the article referred to) and it came to on average one orangutan per year. A completely negligible number compared to natural deaths from fights and old age.

Please show working.

Regardless of the numbers, humans should stop exploiting wild animals because they get in our way or can make us a quick buck.

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

Not only is the New York Times not a credible scientific source. I recalculated the number of Orange killed directly and indirectly by all farmers and loggers in Malaysian Borneo (the part that the article referred to) and it came to on average one orangutan per year. A completely negligible number compared to natural deaths from fights and old age.

Please show working.

Regardless of the numbers, humans should stop exploiting wild animals because they get in our way or can make us a quick buck.

I’m sure there are better reasons than that to stop exploiting wild animals.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Please show working.

Regardless of the numbers, humans should stop exploiting wild animals because they get in our way or can make us a quick buck.

I’m sure there are better reasons than that to stop exploiting wild animals.

Yes, but don’t orang-utans get killed as they are in the way of farmers or loggers and also stolen for the pet trade

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

Regardless of the numbers, humans should stop exploiting wild animals because they get in our way or can make us a quick buck.

I’m sure there are better reasons than that to stop exploiting wild animals.

Yes, but don’t orang-utans get killed as they are in the way of farmers or loggers and also stolen for the pet trade

Just making a weak joke from a sort of ambiguous statement :)

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’m sure there are better reasons than that to stop exploiting wild animals.

Yes, but don’t orang-utans get killed as they are in the way of farmers or loggers and also stolen for the pet trade

Just making a weak joke from a sort of ambiguous statement :)

Oops, got too emotional back there.

One per year is the number of orangs killed in association with palm oil plantations in Sarawak.

It does not include deaths due to traffic accidents, logging, or the bush meat trade. It also does not include deaths in the Indonesian part of Borneo.

My criticism is specifically of the link between orangutan deaths and palm oil.

Good Scientist Cartoon, 12th set of five cartoons

mollwollfumble said:

Oops, got too emotional back there.

One per year is the number of orangs killed in association with palm oil plantations in Sarawak.

It does not include deaths due to traffic accidents, logging, or the bush meat trade. It also does not include deaths in the Indonesian part of Borneo.

My criticism is specifically of the link between orangutan deaths and palm oil.

How can you possibly estimate the number of orangs killed in association with palm oil plantations in Sarawak?

With all the petroleum stooges around here, it’s nice to have a stooge for a different kind of oil.

Good Scientist Cartoon. 13th set of five

mollwollfumble said:

Good Scientist Cartoon. 13th set of five

That’s kind of specious reasoning. The detectability will be related to the absolute amount, not the percentage.

dv said:

That’s kind of specious reasoning. The detectability will be related to the absolute amount, not the percentage.

Absolutely true. A lot of the reasoning in this cartoon is specious, particularly Cartoon Number 1.

14th set of five. 70 down, I’ve drawn up to #168 so far.

LOLed at 066.

:)

Good Scientist Cartoon. 15th set of five

Re 075. We already have the cobalt bomb. 30 wipe out humanity a few more means even the cockroaches are history.

I laughed at 072.

:)

Good to see you are keeping us on our toes with the usual mixture of thought-provoking, weird, and down right dumb :).

073 “Laugh”
That’s a bit much

I think the major advances in modelling of abiogenesis is likely to come from computational molecular dynamics. Moore’s law ain’t what it once was but we can still anticipate that the computing power available to be applied to this problem is, in a decade, likely to be 100 times greater than is now the case.

> Re 075. We already have the cobalt bomb. 30 wipe out humanity a few more means even the cockroaches are history.

The one I’m thinking of is far more deadly than any number of cobalt bombs. It would melt the entire Earth’s crust, killing not just all cockroaches but even all the bacteria living 2 km below the surface. And yes, it’s possible with only a slight improvement on current technology.

> Good to see you are keeping us on our toes with the usual mixture of thought-provoking, weird, and down right dumb :).

Really appreciate that comment. :)

> 073 “Laugh”. That’s a bit much

All right, three weeks. ;-)

> I think the major advances in modelling of abiogenesis is likely to come from computational molecular dynamics. Moore’s law ain’t what it once was but we can still anticipate that the computing power available to be applied to this problem is, in a decade, likely to be 100 times greater than is now the case.

I tried that myself – two different ways. One was a computer program that used Gibbs energy to calculate concentrations of organic compounds. The advantage of that over full molecular dynamics is that it’s easily 10,000 times as fast. It was a good start, but I very quickly ran into molecules for which the Gibbs energy is not known.

The other was a macromolecule-building program that used random numbers to generate new groups. It was fine so far as it went and I got some molecules well over 200 Daltons, but nothing large enough to act as an enzyme, and I found that the rules needed very careful fine tuning in a way that wouldn’t have been available in the primordial ooze.

Physical experiments based on Miller-Urey have already generate bacteria-size structures with a bilayer wall, which wouldn’t be possible to generate using molecular dynamics with any plausibl;e extension of Moore’s law.

Good Scientist Cartoon. 16th set of five.

You’re really hitting your stride, mollwolfumble. :-)

Are you going to monetise?

dv said:

You’re really hitting your stride, mollwolfumble. :-)

Are you going to monetise?

Wow. What a compliment! Excuse me while I let it go to my head.

I have no idea what monetising is. I’m a big fan of xkcd, and would ideally like to have something similar up and running.

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

You’re really hitting your stride, mollwolfumble. :-)

Are you going to monetise?

Wow. What a compliment! Excuse me while I let it go to my head.

I have no idea what monetising is. I’m a big fan of xkcd, and would ideally like to have something similar up and running.

Monetising … making money off it through advertisements and subscriptions.

dv said:

Monetising … making money off it through advertisements and subscriptions.

Not keen on advertisements or subscriptions.

I just want it to be popular enough to be plagiarised or lampooned. But not so popular that I get sued for breach of copyright.

Good Scientist Cartoon, 17th set of five.

The answer to 84 is 2 x infinity + 1

Isn’t it?

The Rev Dodgson said:

The answer to 84 is 2 x infinity + 1

Isn’t it?

So it will always be an odd number of steps.

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The answer to 84 is 2 x infinity + 1

Isn’t it?

So it will always be an odd number of steps.

And I have just discovered the “Marvel Universe” :)

Come to think of it, xkcd doesn’t have ads or subscriptions either but the author makes money selling books and t-shirts.

Although I’ve liked most of these Good Scientist Cartoons I don’t think I am ready to buy a t-shirt.

dv said:

Come to think of it, xkcd doesn’t have ads or subscriptions either but the author makes money selling books and t-shirts.

Although I’ve liked most of these Good Scientist Cartoons I don’t think I am ready to buy a t-shirt.

What about getting “I went to mollwollfumble’s house and all I didn’t get was this lousy t-shirt” printed on a t-shirt

Cymek said:

dv said:

Come to think of it, xkcd doesn’t have ads or subscriptions either but the author makes money selling books and t-shirts.

Although I’ve liked most of these Good Scientist Cartoons I don’t think I am ready to buy a t-shirt.

What about getting “I went to mollwollfumble’s house and all I didn’t get was this lousy t-shirt” printed on a t-shirt

Also not ready to visit his house

Good Scientist Cartoon. 18th set of five

Does anyone claim that Cook did discover Australia?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Does anyone claim that Cook did discover Australia?

Certainly the first Yorkshireman to discover Australia and no one from Lancaster ever discovered Australia.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Does anyone claim that Cook did discover Australia?

Until the 1890s, nobody in Britain questioned that Dampier and Cook discovered Australia, and it was still being taught in Australian schools 70 years later. Because first the Dutch and later Portuguese records hadn’t been translated into English. Flinders knew about the Dutch well enough. But there are a few wrinkles is that cartoon that even Flinders may not have been aware of.

Good Scientist Cartoon. 19th set of five

Not sure that I’d be thrilled to receive a killing jar.

Whatever that is.

But then I suppose I’m not a scientist.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Not sure that I’d be thrilled to receive a killing jar.

Whatever that is.

But then I suppose I’m not a scientist.

It’s an entomologist’s tool.

Although these days most entomologists use freezers.

Good Scientist Cartoon. 20th set of five

098
No air means no wood

dv said:

098
No air means no wood

A point. The original idea of “wood” was using nature to your advantage in tactical situations. Back then “Earth” included weather and daylight. “Wood” included forest and timber.

I suspect that it was only later when the ancients found that fire separated wood into water and earth, so released it from the list. And reclassified the Sun as a type of fire rather than a part of earth. And moved weather into the air category along with other gases. They had to resort to statements like “fire is not fire” to distinguish between burning wood/oil and heat/plasma.