A working brain?
They may want to apply that research to some of the current US Republican politicians. My bet is the megacheiran scores higher on brain capacity.
Behold, the MONSTER-CLAWED critter and its terrifying SPIDER BRAIN
Boffins have uncovered the earliest known complete central nervous system in a never-before-described water-spider-like creature that prowled the ocean 520 MILLION years ago. A fossil of the megacheiran Leanchoilia illecebrosa, showing its characteristic forceps-like great appendages The massively clawed beast is an example …
-
-
Thursday 17th October 2013 12:38 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: A working brain?
Somehow I guessed someone would post that really early on. But you have been beaten to it. It was either Stephen Jay Gould or Steve Mirsky who once remarked of a creature that has a very small head and almost no backbone that it was surely destined for a career in the House of Representatives.
-
Thursday 17th October 2013 14:10 GMT Primus Secundus Tertius
Re: A working brain?
The former British prime minister Sir Alec Douglas-Home tells in his memoirs of major surgery to his back. Afterwards he said to the surgeon, "Congratulations! You have put backbone into a politician".
They did not do much for his brain, though. He used matchsticks to figure out economics.
-
-
-
Thursday 17th October 2013 12:43 GMT xperroni
"Giant" is not a valid metric unit
Great, a giant scorpion-spider hybrid with huge venomous fangs and claws that could crush a bus.
Giant? The article says the critter had a length of three centimeters! Hardly a stompful, actually.
I know you islanders and your colonies just can't let go of that retarded rollercoaster of a measurement system, but do try to keep in touch with the conventions of the 20th century* will you? Here, let me help.
* Yes, the 20th century. I'm trying to be reasonable with you guys, one step at a time and all that.
-
Thursday 17th October 2013 12:56 GMT Frumious Bandersnatch
Re: "Giant" is not a valid metric unit
Giant? The article says the critter had a length of three centimetres
To be fair to the OP, the article also describes it as a "massively clawed beast", which might suggest a giant beast, even though it probably only means that the claw is massive (relative to the creature's size). And OP is talking about dreams, not reality, so accurate measurements or units hardly apply...
-
Thursday 17th October 2013 13:36 GMT Maharg
Re: "Giant" is not a valid metric unit @xeperroni
While I did find your comment amusing (and even gave it a upvote) I would like to point you in the direction of ahistory lesson I posted a while back.
After the British defeated the French, for the 14th or 15th time, a proclamation was sent out around the world saying the British Empire had Imperial measurements and they are only for those strong of heart and mind, the world cowered in awe at the fact we managed to rule all the important bits of the world while measuring them in stupid things like Inches, Feet, Yards, and Furlongs, this was the strong of mind, no French man could figure these distances out.
Strong of Heart came from the Imperial Pint, Gallons and Yards of Ale, No French man could drink that much, and our weapons and our men weighed Pounds and Stones, No Frenchman would dare bring something that weighed a few kilograms to a fight against something that was so heavy it was measured in Stones.
Unfortunately because the Yanks sucked up to the French they got rid of Imperial until they realized the French drink beer in small glasses with Peach juice in and had to beg the British to let them use Pints again.
But we said NO, you rejected the British Pint, and for that you will be punished with slightly smaller beer quantities forever! God Save the Queen!
True Story.
-
Thursday 17th October 2013 13:55 GMT xperroni
Re: "Giant" is not a valid metric unit @xeperroni
After the British defeated the French, for the 14th or 15th time
I'm sorry, I can't remember: was that time before or after the Normans conquered England?
Or was it closer to when the French took away Normandy – making it so that not only had Normandy been forcibly inserted into the England kingdom, but also pulled off in the same manner?
-
Thursday 17th October 2013 14:22 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: "Giant" is not a valid metric unit @xeperroni
Check your history. The Normans (and William) were not French. There is also an awful lot of history between 1066 and now (it's, like, almost 1000 years!). Also, consider that England was not subsumed into France but that the Norman invaders slowly went native and then fought many times against "the old country".
-
Friday 18th October 2013 10:43 GMT xperroni
Re: "Giant" is not a valid metric unit @xeperroni
Check your history. The Normans (and William) were not French.
You could just as well have argued that the peoples they conquered weren't British, as the Normans themselves are part of the modern British people's ancestry.
Doesn't matter. Spin it whatever way you like, it's mainlanders 1 x 0 islanders all the same.
Also, consider that England was not subsumed into France but that the Norman invaders slowly went native and then fought many times against "the old country".
So the badass Normans went native and were promptly kicked off their old lands. Somehow I don't think this makes things any better.
-
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Thursday 17th October 2013 16:23 GMT Maharg
Re: "Giant" is not a valid metric unit @xeperroni
I know geography is not an American strong point, but when referring to ‘British’ we are talking about more than just England, and I don’t remember the Normans ever controlling Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.
Here is a good video explaining it by (of all people) an American!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNu8XDBSn10
-
Friday 18th October 2013 10:47 GMT xperroni
Re: "Giant" is not a valid metric unit @xeperroni
I know geography is not an American strong point, but when referring to ‘British’ we are talking about more than just England
Oh, I'm sorry. So likewise, when Maharg wrote:
After the British defeated the French
He actually meant:
After the English rounded up their vassals to face up the French, because sure as Hell they wouldn't have the guts to do it on their own
Right?
-
-
-
-
Friday 18th October 2013 13:40 GMT Wzrd1
Re: "Giant" is not a valid metric unit
"Giant? The article says the critter had a length of three centimeters! Hardly a stompful, actually."
True, they're the size of salad shrimp.
So, a bunch of them are a "stompful, actually." :)
As for measurement systems, sorry we didn't adopt that French system. We're still fixated on a system of measures derived from a king's johnson or something. ;)
Besides, it's fun to confound you. Many a fine night was spent educating some of the Queen's subjects on what federal, state and county governments were, their Constitutional basis, the history involved and the abuses that spurred the separations of authority.
Though, I'll admit, it wasn't such a long session that we came close to running out of beer.
BTW, how many stone do you weigh?*
*For those non-conversant, the stone is relatively unknown in the US, but a rather common, imperial measurement in the UK.
-
-
-
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
