More gums than Jaws: Greenland super-sharks live past 400 years old Researchers from the University of Copenhagen have overturned biological thinking with the discovery that the Greenland shark, an apex predator swimming in the Arctic Ocean, can grow to over 400 years old. The shark, which feeds on seals, fish, and whatever else it can get its saw-like jaws into, has an exceptionally slow …
<pedant>
No it isn't. America has been there for millions of years. America even predates any form of human occupation by a very wide margin. OK; I might accept "Typical specimen is older than naming of America" but even that might be wrong.
</pedant>
Totally agreed, but what Iain probably meant was "Typical specimen is older than the USA". That would fit with the sharks "average lifespan of 272 years".* :-)
In a more serious note, I don't think that calling USA's citizens "Americans " is correct or admissible, even if mostly everybody does it.
*: Which was probably the point of your comment. ;-)
!In a more serious note, I don't think that calling USA's citizens "Americans " is correct or admissible, even if mostly everybody does it."
I thought the general usage these days was 'muricans? Or Yanks, that works too. Or, if they elect that orange potato-faced halfwit, 'Buffoons'...
Or, if they elect that orange potato-faced halfwit, 'Buffoons'...
I think that condition was more than met when they elected one George W Bush. And re-elected him.
That said, on this side of the pond the same happened, the f*ckwit in question a certain Tony Blair. Also twice.
This post has been deleted by its author
That said, on this side of the pond the same happened, the f*ckwit in question a certain Tony Blair. Also twice.
Nope. That would be 3 times. (To be fair, sometimes traumatic events do get repressed).
Or more pedanctically, Zero times, as we elect MPs (and by extension parties) not prime ministers. ;)
@Mikey
Yes! Revert to attacking appearances... Nicely done! I could care less if he's got a fucking potato head and crossed eyes if he can lead a country sensibly. But I guess the UK wouldn't know what it's like to have a leader lead sensibly for quite some time, regardless of appearance.
And for historical reference, the term Yanks is really referring to the Dutch immigrants to NY, which was called New Amsterdam, and the kids were all named Jan Cees or Yankees when you've had one too many Guinness.
-The proper expression is "I couldn't care less..."-
Nope; "I could care less." is the proper term.
I always take it to mean, "I could care less, but it's not worth the effort."
No the correct term is "I couldn't care less". If you could care less then you care some what about it, so you do think and put energy in to something you don't actually care about.
"I always take it to mean, "I could care less, but it's not worth the effort.""
Doesn't make sense, as said before, if you could care less, you care about it, therefore put energy in to said caring. If you couldn't care less, you don't think at all about it therefore expend no energy on it.
Those 2 links are for people that don't actually understand what the words coming out of their mouths mean.
Different AC.
@AC'(s) Don't know if there are many cowards out there...
Gee, glad the whole idea of making fun of someone's appearance missed the mark, and one apostrophe and one t created a shit storm, nicely done again. Way to derail the comment! Now get a life...
"Could care less" is logically incorrect but accepted in general speech in the US. Read literally it indicates that it is possible for you to care less about the topic which is probably not what you meant. There's a pretty fair summary at http://grammarist.com/usage/could-care-less/
North American refers to things from north of the Panamanian isthmus.
South American refers to things from south of the Panamanian isthmus.
American is a superset of both - referring to things from all "the Americas" and is also a colloquialism for "of USA."
Yank is a synonym of "jerk."
'nuff said?
This is in reply To Cap. Dafts comments about "I could care less" being the correct and valid phrase - they will be about 100 posts above this one due to a politics conversation and the Reg's rather limited threading system.....
no ! no! no!
Its just wrong , unless that second post is saying people are saying that "ironicly" ie because they know its wrong? which is the same as admitting its wrong.
Anyway - ill leave it to the king of logic and angry rants, David Mitchell, To explain it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om7O0MFkmpw
But I guess the UK wouldn't know what it's like to have a leader lead sensibly for quite some time, regardless of appearance.
.. quite interesting to hear from a nation who had to ditch the only person who actually managed to reduce your deficit by foisting a kid on him who didn't know how to clean a dress. I guess he wasn't wasting enough money on wars and the Stasi clones you have today who are quite happy to perpetuate the financial hole you have as they get served with tax money (as well as what you borrow per second) well before the population. Clever that, living so far above your standard that nobody no longer has a choice but to keep lending..
Also, as far as I know, the UK isn't capable of initiating a global financial crisis. It's quite able to help, granted (and the main actor in that here has dragged an enormous amount of loot out of that one himself, of course), but it still has too many people who can whistle back the government before it goes completely wrong.
That said, we're now well on track to lose a large part of those annoying shackles - to me, that appears the main reason to push for Brexit. Can't have them foreigners hold back the fleecing of the peasants like the US can.
On the plus side, as long as those peasants still believe all that nonsense about "democracy" and "freedom" there isn't really a reason to change, is there? The US problem is that the black ones have caught on. You can only kill so many of them without any noticeable consequences before the herd starts questioning your claims that you have a functional justice system - you might want to keep that in mind. *Proper* leadership would have dealt with that a long time ago..
@chivo
"Nicely done! I could care less if he's got a fucking potato head and crossed eyes if he can lead a country sensibly"
What are you trying to say? That you actually care a lot? Or did you mean to say "I couldn't care less..." you need a negative in there or what you're trying to say makes no sense - unless you have no idea of what you're talking about - in which case who cares.
And yes, while we in the UK did vote in the Tony bliar (see what I did there?) what amazes still me is that the US actually voted in Al Gore, but got dumber-than-a-bag-of-nails George W Bush, then actually voted him in properly next-time-around after he'd made a fool of himself and a mockery of the US.
By comparison Donald (would have made more money had he left his huge inheritance in the bank) Trump sure does knows how to run a country (oops! I forgot to put a negative in there)
> !In a more serious note, I don't think that calling USA's citizens "Americans " is correct or admissible, even if mostly everybody does it."
If most everyone doing it isn't the definition of correct, then what is? And have you tried looking in a dictionary?
Because "American" really is the correct, accepted demonym for US Citizens. The citizens of other countries in the Americas have their own demonyms, e.g. Canadian, Mexican, Peruvian, Bolivian, Honduran, Brazilian, Argentine (no, not Argentinian), etc., etc.
Or you could look like a dumbass and try to use USAian or something similarly stupid. (Cue rounds of: it's 'Murican, usually punctuated with comments about overweight Americans, as if Britain doesn't have plenty of its own lard asses.)
In a more serious note, I don't think that calling USA's citizens "Americans " is correct or admissible, even if mostly everybody does it.
Well, technically, calling US citizens "Americans" is as correct as calling squares "rectangles" (i.e, the first is a specific subset of the second.)
However, using "Americans" to refer ONLY to US citizens is, yes, extremely stupid.
>older than naming of America
I suspect the author was referring to the "United States of America" - the political, rather than geographical entity.
Referring to the geographical entity would obviously be pointless with regard to lifetimes - even the exceptional shark lifetimes - and is therefore an unlikely reading of the text.
I suspect the author was referring to the "United States of America" - the political, rather than geographical entity.
Seems highly likely; some (very) casual research suggested that the expression United States of America was first used in 1776.
However, for those of us for which that particular date does not represent some sort of "year zero" we could say that a typical Greenland Shark alive now could easily have been born before the Jacobite Rebellion of 1745 with the oldest individuals perhaps being alive during the Great Plague of 1665 * or the Great Fire of London * the following year.
* Other historical waypoints are available.
I can't say I'm impressed with the taste of a much smaller shark, dogfish, AKA rock salmon.
I have never tried eating one. Having had to dissect a dogfish as part of a Biology course when at school I only have to hear the words "dogfish" or "rock salmon" for me to recall the the smell of fishy formaldehyde - the dissection was not a one day event.
I also recall the poor fish wreaking a sort of post mortem revenge by being able to blunt any approaching scalpel blade without physical contact being required.
Somehow the idea of eating one simply does not appeal...
I'm rather fond of shark* but it must be fresh and "in season" as it does, like most cartilaginous fish, have a disagreeable ammoniacal off season...
*in general, never tried Greenland shark. Seems its off season is more pronounced and perpetual... although I understand more hardy chondrichthivores overcome this by allowing their dinner to rot for a few months prior to consumption.
This post has been deleted by its author
They should be careful in case the carbon isotope ratio is skewed by the environment being isolated and their primary food source being several steps away from the atmosphere, where the isotope ratio is regulated.
In other words, if Mommy shark has been eating things that are already 100 years old, then all of her carbon will already be one hundred years old at the get-go of Baby shark's eyeballs. If she's been eating fresh corn on the cob, then it's a non-issue.
Carbon-14 dating tells you how long the carbon has been out of the atmosphere. Things living underwater and getting their carbon by eating other elderly things, could be eating old carbon.
The sharks are probably old, no argument. I'm just wondering if they've even considered this obvious factor. If not, then the 400 might be off.
Maybe they could find a baby shark and check its eyeballs. They'd better be, like, age 3.
Well, as I read the article they checked for the spike from the H-bomb testings and to their surprise only found it in a few young specimens. As they also eat fish I assume a lot of their food has a lot less than 100 years delay from atmospheric carbon.
Also 272 isn't an average, it's an error bar.
Carbon dating is quite accurate but not very precise.
The largest of the sharks tested was aged between 272 and 512 years old, so most probably ~400.
Those are some pretty wide error bars.
America was so named after Amerigo Vespucci, cartographer.
Richard ap Meryk (Amerike/Ameryk) 1440–1503), a wealthy English merchant, was the owner of the Matthew sailed by John Cabot to North America in 1497. So, do we continue referring to America as Amerika, or start calling it A-merry-go to keep some Merkin historians happy?
Please do NOT tell me there is a historical museum of merkins somewhere, with official historians.
Your wish is my command.
Historians are generally far more interested in textual information than textured objects (furry or otherwise). These latter are generally the province of antiquarians, or curators.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
