Could it be that there be sea monsters after all? Scientists have just release video of a deep-sea creature called the “Oarfish.” Not to be confused with the “or fish” you are sometimes offered at restaurant chains. Here is an image of the cute little feller:
Mmmm... anchovies. Oops. I mean, isn’t it cute? Who wouldn’t want one of those in their fish tank? The Oarfish lives between 1,500 ft and 3,000 ft deep where it’s absolutely pitch black. So the little guy is blind. So you will probably need to keep your tank away from windows and you might need a brail fish feeder.
Oh, and you might want a bigger tank. See, that deep, things tend to be a little bigger than you expect, especially when you examine them through a camera on which objects may be closer (or further) than they appear.
To give you a sense of how big of a tank, here’s an image of one that washed ashore in Cabo San Lucas in 2006.
This was 15 feet long and that was apparently just a baby because in 1901 they found one that was 22-feet long in Newport Beach, California. And in 1808 Scotland they claim to have found one that was 56 feet long (but it may just have been eating Viagra weed)!
Anyway, no word on if any of them spit fire from either end or if they like the taste of salty sea— uh, sailors. But it’s interesting to think that sea monsters might be real.
Mmmm... anchovies. Oops. I mean, isn’t it cute? Who wouldn’t want one of those in their fish tank? The Oarfish lives between 1,500 ft and 3,000 ft deep where it’s absolutely pitch black. So the little guy is blind. So you will probably need to keep your tank away from windows and you might need a brail fish feeder.
Oh, and you might want a bigger tank. See, that deep, things tend to be a little bigger than you expect, especially when you examine them through a camera on which objects may be closer (or further) than they appear.
To give you a sense of how big of a tank, here’s an image of one that washed ashore in Cabo San Lucas in 2006.
This was 15 feet long and that was apparently just a baby because in 1901 they found one that was 22-feet long in Newport Beach, California. And in 1808 Scotland they claim to have found one that was 56 feet long (but it may just have been eating Viagra weed)!
Anyway, no word on if any of them spit fire from either end or if they like the taste of salty sea— uh, sailors. But it’s interesting to think that sea monsters might be real.
79 comments:
FYI, the book is doing well. It's starting to get some momentum. Please leave a review if you can! :)
Review me...
I feel like I have to share this. Highly entertaining, especially if you're female.
My link is relevant only in the sense that the angler fish lives in the depths of the ocean, and that nature comes up with really weird stuff.
Hmm. And that's why you always want to screen your dates!
Jocelyn, I've never heard of that before, but it is darn right weird. Nature absolutely makes some strange, strange things.
That's a purty big anchovy there.
"In Russia, anchovies order people on their pizzas."
Or no people if they're on a low salt diet. I heard.
You have a new book? Man, I really need to catch up!
Ben, That what you call a Jumbo Anchovie.
Yeah, I heard that about Russia.
Ben, It's political. It's only $1. Go get it and read it. You will like it!
Gee thanks, Jocelyn. Now I'll have nightmares! Egads!
A political thriller? :)
No, though I do have some ideas for a political thriller in the future. This is my take on what the Republican Agenda should be to win over average people. It's a good read and so far everyone who's read it and talked to me about it has been pretty impressed. It's got a lot of radical ideas in it that are actually surprisingly common sense -- the kind of thing that gets you saying, "Why aren't we doing that already?"
Ben, Follow the link ----> LINK
... and you'll see the book and see what's in it. You can download a free sample of the first 1.5 chapters in your browser, plus you can see the table of contents and all of that.
There's a paperback version too, but it's a little more expensive.
Thanks Andrew, I'll check it out.
Ben, I didn't think it was real, but if you would like additional nightmares, I suggest you look into the Mantis Shrimp. Be warned, it's a long one. If you couldn't tell, I enjoy this guys comics.
Again, what the heck nature?!
I love the Full Metal Jacket reference... and the body armor. LOL!
Wow. Those are cool looking ninja shrimp!
"Look dear,i caught a shrim...aaaahhhh! My eyes!"
Yep, lots of ideas for horror films from those puppies. :)
Maybe it's the extra color receptors that make it so evil. Perhaps it's good that we cannot see what the mantis shrimp sees. Perhaps it would drive us into murderous madness.
A worthwhile COMMENTARY from Breitbart.
Hmm. Well, honestly, that's not a worthwhile commentary. All he's doing is trying to explain away the huge flaw in conservative conspiracy theory that the government can be simultaneously incompetent and yet omnipotent. The problem with what he's doing is:
1. He fundamentally misunderstands everything he's talking about,
2. He draws false conclusions based on his misunderstanding, and
3. He then assumes evil intent based on his own false view of how the government works.
For example, assuming the government is telling the truth about the spying (which I actually think they are), then they weren't spying domestically, they were spying on foreign communications that passed through the US. Thus, they could not have spotted the Boston terrorists with this spying because he was domestic, i.e. it wasn't that they didn't want to spot him.
Moreover, there is a fundamental difference between knowing that people visit terrorist-related websites and knowing they will act as terrorists. He misses that point and assumes that once we know someone has visited such a site, then we know they will act as terrorists. That's hindsight thinking.
Not to mention that he would be screaming like a stuck pig if he found himself accused of a crime merely because he visited a website that other criminals visit. He would call that Orwellian.
Further, he does the old "they ain't looking for fraud among those dirty poor people" though the statistics say that's simply not true. So his assumption is simply bullsh*t. Further, the problem is that it's easier said than done to stop fraud. The government doesn't have the resources to pursue every crime -- either catching or prosecuting, so choices get made. And something like a couple hundred dollars in food stamp fraud is not a high priority. And frankly, if the government did have the resources to pursue the 100% he seems to demand, he would be screaming about the massive police state we have.
Not to mention that he's talking in a vacuum. Food stamp fraud is around 1% of the program, though he acts like the program is awash in it.
It's the same thing with his suggestion that the government could be using technology to stop food stamp fraud or "find the 11 million illegals." First, technology costs a lot of money, money people aren't willing to spend. Secondly, it's no panacea at all, like he pretends. Third, conservatives have actually stopped most of what he wants because they start screaming like howler monkeys about "a national ID card!!!" Even now they demand "border security" but then turn around and attack the elements of that -- they've attacked eVerify as Orwellian and they started screaming about "Rubio wants the gobment to track us!!! Biometrics! Biometrics! The Nazis!" You can't have both -- a small government with no power to snoop AND absolutely control over the population. He's wrongly pretending that you can.
Finally, he's talking all of these half-truths and unicorn assumption and spinning them all into intent.
I didn't read it that way. I just read it as the system being awash in irony.
That said, I will agree that the left turns a blind eye to conduct they otherwise attack when it comes from people they like. Thus, for example, they excuse behavior from Muslims that they would be calling for the death penalty if it came from white Christians. And Obama has put a different emphasis on what laws will be enforced. But that's nothing like what this guy spins.
The world this guy has spun together is too heavy on fantasy and conspiracy. His problem is that he believes the government works like the Bourne films with rooms of secret NSA agents watching the world in real time on their widescreen televisions. Hence, he concludes, if they see everything, but they don't catch certain people, then they must have decided to ignore the crimes of those people. But that's laughably false. There are no rooms of CIA agents watching the public. That's fantasy. The government is an "after the fact" investigator, not a proactive intervener.
I didn't see the irony. I read it as him trying to be more serious.
with rooms of secret NSA agents watching the world in real time on their widescreen televisions
You mean it doesn't work that way? :-)
You do bring up an interesting paradox - how can the government be so completely inept, yet so eeevil.
Scott, No, it can't.
Look, the government has certain capabilities.
1. It has satellites with incredible resolution... but it only has a couple and those tend to be in high demand for things like military projects.
2. It can monitor vast amounts of data, but the data itself is meaningless. It relies on algorithms to tell it when people do something it has tagged as suspicious. When that happens, it can then do things like wire taps or surveillance, but that requires actual humans and there aren't very many of those.
3. If it decides you've broken the law, it then needs people to arrest you and prosecute you. There are about 400 US attorneys and another 1,000 people at DOJ. That's it. And they can't act without evidence... and "he went to a bad website" is not evidence.
The government is simply too small and too poorly equipped to behave the way people want to believe it does. They just don't realize this because compared to them, the government seems huge and incredibly well equipped... and because films give them a really skewed sense of reality.
As for the "paradox" of the government being inept and evil, that's not really a paradox. The inept can easily be evil or abusive. The Nazis were both, as were the communists. The paradox is the idea that the government is omnipotent and omniscient except when it inexplicably becomes inept. The problem there is that the idea that the government is omnipotent and omniscient is the fantasy. But it's a fantasy people want to believe because its more comforting to think that "the government won't" rather than "the government can't" because people find it comforting to believe that the randomness of the world can be controlled. And they would rather believe that "if we could just put good people in charge of the machine" then we could fix everything.
You do bring up an interesting paradox - how can the government be so completely inept, yet so eeevil.
Scott, you've obviously not been acquainted with Boris Badenov, Natasha Fatale and Fearless Leader. ;)
I didn't say it was my paradox, only that it appeared to be a paradox. :-)
I'm reminded of a line from Woody Allen's Shadows and Fog, though I doubt the sentiment originated with him: "I don't know enough to be incompetent!"
Backthrow, What are you saying? Are you saying they aren't competent? It sounds like you need to spend a few weeks in a Pottyslvania re-education camp!
Scott, Evil and incompetent is no problem at all. In fact, incompetent often breeds evil. The real paradox, the one people are finding hard to explain right now, is all-powerful and all-knowing and yet incompetent.
So speaking of "evil" and "incompetent", which do you think it is better to be, governmentally speaking?
Bev, I think a certain type of incompetence breeds evil.
I prefer my government to be bumbling more than anything quite frankly.
By the way, Bev, How's the hangover... er, how's LAX?
Did they finally clear Obama out?
I think the author was making a serious point but he is also using a lot of ironic language in the process.
"super-spying...managed to miss"
"spiffy"
"double whammy"
"trusty sidekick"
Not only that, but if the title--"Big Government sees what it wants to see"--has any bearing on the article (something I never simply assume, but in this case it makes sense) then the article is a laundry list of the things the government is willing and unwilling to do. The resultant picture is quite ironic.
If the article is merely an attempt to expound on that nugget, then he's just repeatedly making the point that our government has told us all these other efforts of monitoring are too hard, too costly, or just wrong. But in the wake of the Verizon revelation, it makes all such claims suspect.
Yes, there are some juxtapositions that are enough to cause certain types to run wild with claims of conspiracy. I think it's a haphazard use of juxtaposition, rather than an intentional one--so again, malice vs. ineptitude. Maybe I'm the naive one for not reading between the lines, but I don't think he's blowing any dog whistles.
tryanmax, I see what you're saying, but I think I'm using the word "irony" different than you are. There is no doubt he meant it as irony, but it's not irony... it's nonsense.
To be ironic takes being right in your underlying assumptions. He's not. He's completely wrong in everything he says. What he's saying is the equivalent of:
"Now that we have flying cars, isn't it ironic that the government tells us there are no unicorns."
Well, we don't have flying cars, and even if we did, that wouldn't be proof of unicorns. So I don't see this as ironic. It was meant as ironic, but it's not ironic. And I think his use of ironic language is simply an attempt to inject sarcasm (i.e. smugness) to make his point seem "obvious".
What I saw when I read this was that he's trying to make competing theories work together (1) the false idea that Obama is an all-powerful fascist who controls our lives in magical ways, and (2) the idea that the government is inept. And the vehicle he's chosen to do that is to claim that the ineptitude is intentional. Basically, all-powerful Obama IS all-powerful except when he lies and claims to be helpless so he can let things happen we don't like. But the problem is, as I outlined above, not a single thing he says is the least bit true. This man fundamentally does not understand how the spying worked, how the government functions, the size scope or abilities of the government, or even what the government is or is not doing.
That's why I responded the way I did to the article.
If I was on a ship or boat and I saw something like that pass by, I would believe in sea monsters too. That would be pretty freaky. I wonder what makes them come to surface?
And tryanmax and Jocelyn, seeing that much color would be cool, but it would probably drive us crazy. Imagine trying to pick out the right colors to decorate a room?
Ellen, Definitely, especially if it blew fire out either end!
In terms of what brings them up, I have no idea. I don't think they can live outside the depths, so I'm sure it was an accident of some sort. Maybe they get caught in an updraft or something? Of course, animals do strange things -- like dolphins or whales who beach themselves. So who know?
Andrew, Just to clarify, do you think the government is benign?
Also, I'll bet the fish tastes more like calamari than anchovies.
Kelly, No, not at all. I just think this guy is wrong. I absolutely think that the government has a history of abusing its power to the favor of liberals and of failing to exercise its power to the favor of conservatives.
I just think that all of the assumptions underlying the argument the guy makes are faulty assumptions. The government doesn't have the power he claims, it doesn't refuse to act as he suggests, and it couldn't do what he says it could.
As for the fish... you know, I could see that. That would be a REALLY tough fish to eat if it had the consistency of calamari.
I figured. I just want to check.
I can't imagine calamari at that size. They would need to slice it very thin or you couldn't eat it.
Kelly, That is why God invented meat slicers.
Cooked properly, calamari should have the consistency of pasta al dente. But, yeah, giant rubbery calamari would be impossible.
True. My favorite version is actually the sushi version which I think is bathed in booze or something like that. But if it gets more than a few millimeters thick, it becomes impossible to chew. Imagine getting handed a 6 inch thick steak!
I'd give it the ol' college try!
Grrrr! I could pull my hair out! I just read an article claiming that it's a lie that the Rubio immigration bill would require illegal immigrants to learn English to earn citizenship. But the basis for the claim is that they don't need to speak English to apply for "registered provisional immigrant status."
TWO DIFFERENT THINGS, PEOPLE!
The very same article debunks itself. It lays out a rough description of the "pathway to citizenship" starting with provisional status, then to green card--for which English is required--then finally citizenship. So basically the author is unhappy that the pathway merely includes a requirement to learn English, but it doesn't start with that requirement.
Anyone care to explain how that is NOT at least bigoted to a small degree?
I'm not sure which is more aggravating: the lie itself or the fact that the author didn't even bother to filter out the facts that damage his claim.
Oh, and of course the comments section was full of agreement.
LOL! I'd give a try too! :D
On the Rubio bill, I've had to stop reading most articles about it because the lies and the idiocy are so stunning that it hurts my brain just to read them. It's like watching children scream about the boogeyman... only less cute. And yeah, the comments are crawling with bigots.
I'm not surprised by the sleight of hand you found in that article because I see the same thing all the time from most conservative opponents. The latest trick is to mix "legal status" with "citizenship" to come up with the most ludicrous statements. Someone at a supposedly reputable conservative site actually claimed "the real bill" allowed them all to become "citizens" within six months.
Others have invented a new number claiming there are 33 million illegals here and that there will be another 50 million coming as soon as these get through.
The Heritage number has been blown apart by any number of sources including various conservatives sites and yet the opponents not only keep citing it, they have taken to doubling it lately on the basis that we forget about all the illegals who will be arriving soon.
Breitbart actually made the laughable delusional claim that now that "we" have ensures that the bill is guaranteed to be defeated, the RINO Rubio "desperately" wants out of the Gang of 8. Hardly.
Honestly, I've stopped listening.
Much less cute! And I'd say "slight of hand" is giving far too much credit. It's like a magician saying "now you see it, now you don't" while tossing the rabbit over his shoulder.
BTW, I predict it will pass the Senate with 67 votes and the House with about 25 votes.
Shoot, did I use the wrong "slight"? Slow brain day. :(
Yeah, the lies are so blatant that anyone who misses them is basically wanting to miss them... which is the case with a lot of people right now.
Fortunately, I'm not sure the public is paying attention to the tantrum. It seems to be happening at conservative blogs and on doomsday talk radio, where the general public never goes. But when you watch the Republicans, you see them presented through the MSM as being constructive and pleasant about this... they're saying all the right things. And Rubio comes across as really intensely dedicated and likable. So for right now, the PR is good.
As an aside, the interesting thing about the Rubio bill right now is that there seems to be a push from both Republicans and Democrats to strengthen the border provisions. I get the sense that means some changes will be made in that regard. I'm not sure what kind yet, but I think something will need to change with the number of people saying they will only support it if it gets tougher.
The latest proposal comes from Rubio himself, who is proposing letting Congress vote each year on whether or not the border is secure.
Hopefully they can accomplish that. Not that it will shut up anyone calling for it. They'll just say it's a lie. Because it was Marco Rubio who lied about amnesty back in 1986.
No, it won't stop the anti-Rubio crowd, but they aren't really relevant to the bill or the process anymore. To me, the question now is making sure that the bill is a good one and fixing the Republican problem with Hispanics, and that seems to be well on course.
Yep, he did in fact lie in 1986. He also brainwashed Ronald Reagan and he sold the Soviets the secret of Tetrus. That was back when his chief of staff was working for George Soros. LINK.
Well, that proves Rubio is evil. Most 15 year old boys are only interested in girls, not international espionage. He's probably a Soviet sleeper.
The Soviets will rise again! LOL! Didn't Glenn Beck say we were at war with Russia again the other day?
If you didn't read the Soros article, it's worth a read. It shows the kind of garbage being passed around right now about Rubio and how far it goes without anyone checking on it.
I read enough. It's witch-hunt nonsense. Rubio is a closet communist. I know because, when he pees, he shakes with the wrong hand.
Ugh! I made the mistake of leaving a comment on the article I mentioned earlier. Actually, most of the replies are backing me up, but this one guy left a lengthy rebuttal that splits hairs by claiming that, since there already exists an English language requirement, it isn't really part of the bill.
Rubio's a witch too?!! I knew something was wrong!! LOL!
Drudge Headline 06/09/2013 "Rubio a witch!"
Yeah, I've run into that kind of argument too. The logic goes: "There is a requirement. BUT no one has follows it now. Ergo, no one will ever follow it. Ergo, it's not really in the new bill."
That's basically a form of mental paralysis because it means there's no possibility of changing anything.
He's not even claiming it won't be followed. He's just saying that because the bill builds on existing law, the existing portions aren't "in" the bill. That's straining to make a point if I've ever seen it.
That's an inventive, if idiotic argument. I've seen the other version with regard to the border security: "It doesn't matter how much the bill promises on border security, the prior promises were all lies, so these will be lies too, ergo, the bill 'does nothing' for border security."
Because I'm like a dog with a bone, I had to check for myself, and the guy is demonstrably wrong.
S-744 (The Rubio/Gang of 8 Bill), Title II, Subtitle A, sec. 2102(b)(4) explicitly declares an English requirement and only refers to existing law to define said requirement.
If I may respond...
"Stop confusing everyone with facts! You only rely on facts because you have nothing else. You just want this thing to pass!"
Ugh! I'm sorry. Only feelings matter. I'd say I know that, but that implies a fact, so I guess I feel that.
By the way, I got something like that once when I tried to engage some of them. They said, "Why should we trust you? You just want the thing to pass."
To which I said, "Here's the link, look for yourself."
To which they said, "How do I know that's the bill?"
To which I said, "Because the link is the Congress where these things get posted."
To which they responded, "They won't ever enforce that even if it is in the bill."
Yep, only feelings. The veneer of facts we want to believe.
Isn't it funny how much the opposition to this bill mimics the way liberals argue?
But as long as I'm already confusing people with facts, I'd like to share that the same part of the bill only makes to exceptions to the English requirement: 1) for physical limitations that prevent meeting the requirement and 2) persons over 70. There is no "Janet Napolitano can personally waive whoever she wants" clause. I know because I did a word search for "Janet Napolitano."
I'm laughing through my tears, Andrew. Through my tears.
But I might be crying because I'm out of booze.
tryanmax, They claimed there were something like 400 exceptions. And as I pointed out, they basically did a word search for the words "exception" and "waiver" even though that makes no sense. Then they reported this number to scare people without distinguishing which ones are real exceptions and which ones aren't.
Ultimately, after all their best efforts to scaremonger, they only managed to point to ONE exception as having ANY meaning, and that was a debatable point (to put it kindly) about certifying border security. If there was any way to spin there being exceptions to the English requirement or to letting Obama just declare them all citizens (as has also been claimed) it would have been discovered by now.
Sorry about the booze. You could always buy some of those booze filled chocolates and put them in a juicer! :D
You mean it doesn't piss you off that those septuagenarian greasers don't have to quit there bean-talk?
Good advice on the chocolates, but I think I'll just eat them. Wait a minute... They aren't Mexican chocolates, are they?
//shakes head slowly
Yeah, I'd probably eat them too. And no, only the ones with tequila are Mexican, the rest are from China.
And... Scene!
I want Arnold Schwarzenegger to play me!
The latest proposal comes from Rubio himself, who is proposing letting Congress vote each year on whether or not the border is secure.
Apparently he's been reading my posts here.
K, Rubio has been pretty smart about how he's handled the whole thing and he has very much made it clear that the bill needs some changes. We're now in that phase where the horsetrading begins and each side tries to get things they want and decide what they are willing to live with.
I don't know if he'll get that specific provision or not, but it does have some momentum. So we'll see.
I've honestly been very impressed with his political skill so far, so I don't rule out anything as impossible at this point.
Most 15 year old boys are only interested in girls, not international espionage.
Some of us were into both. In fact, I was so much into espionage that girls never even noticed me! :-D
Scott, That is indeed an excellent way to go unnoticed. LOL!
BTW, There's a new RINO to add to the list. Kelly Ayotte. She now backs the Rubio Amnesty Bill.
Rand Paul does too, but he's being political about it. I expect he will "reluctantly" announce at the last possible second.
So, Edward Snowden. Hero whistleblower or commie agent?
According to Wikipedia, Snowden donated money to Ron Paul. So I'm thinking commie is unlikely.
FYI, tonight's article is about this topic, so I'll publish it now...
Post a Comment