Lagoon Island Pearls

There are no solutions to things that don't exist. Persisting as though they do is wishy washy. By your logic, if unicorns existed, you're content to call others trolls, simply because they'd be inclined to think females might not have horns. It's absurd. Elephants were mentioned as analogs to mammoths, yet it was pointed out...clearly, they are of different habitats. No maybes about that.

There's no such thing as "forced" consensus. That would be tyrannical authority. You've contradicted yourself in the same breath. Until something is known to exist, there's actually nothing to discuss. We've indulged you to the degree of discussing abstract scenarios as we know them, for the sake of the discussion. That point seems lost on you.

Captivity is not "proverbially" ethical to some, but to others. Consensus on that issue is rarely unanimous. For example, Planned Parenthood asking for shipping fees to transport stem cells equates to murdering babies for profit is purported by some zealots. Besides that, necromancy and resurrection don't actually exist. Therefore the burden is yours, otherwise we might as well be discussing Season 6 of Game of Thrones for all the weight it has in the real world. "Evil" or "divine" are not axioms where fundamental assumptions serve as a basis for deduction. They're not without predators and parasites. Not to mention oil spills and other marine pollution. I've see a couple of roughed up survivors, possibly from orca attacks. Hunting could be permitted as with any game animal. Whether ocean acidification is or isn't an incidental or underlying factor remains to be seen, but undoubtedly warrants further study. This discussion isn't necessarily about "invasive" species, but it's certainly parallel in some ways.

I presented facts based on thirty years of observation, where clearly the re-introduction of a species was a serious detriment to otherwise stable species. Natural selection can ONLY occur without human intervention, otherwise it's "artificial" selection.

That might be true in some applications, but an 8 ohm radio speaker is an AC device, after all it's driven by a matching transformer. Some speakers might use one "leg" as a ground, but if no external voltages are applied, conductor polarity is a non-issue. The reason why speakers are marked as positive and negative, is not to match voltage. It's purpose is to match "phases". A mismatch would put the phase 180 degrees out, then things like cross-over networks malfunction.

Tinkering with domestic audio is pretty safe, generally. So long as you're not adding powers supplies, jumping across terminals or touching capacitors there's very little chance of burning things or electrocuting yourself. Trial and error is a good learning tool, some times.

That way, you can use the radio itself as an amplifier. No. You are not dealing with voltage. You are dealing with a signal frequency "carried" by a mere fraction of a volt, which is analog. Incorrect connection would only cause a hum.

It's not necessarily a matter of positive or negative. It's a matter of hot/ground. A stereo signal requires 3 conductors. The braid is common ground and acts as a shield to prevent parasitic inter-modulation (namely the dreaded 60 Hz hum from AC lines). The center conductors are both hot. You'll also need to consider at what "level" your signal is. Standard radios have 8 ohm speakers, in which currents might be too high or too low for your mobile device. This is why audio devices have matching transformers in the output chain. Instead of tapping into the speaker, try at the input potentiometer (otherwise known as the volume control)

99.9999% of earth's species have already lived and died. Of the 30-50 (estimated) million that remain, only a limited few will go extinct due to human activity. Agreed. A good example is the Northern Pacific Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris). They were hunted to near extinction in previous centuries, but reintroduction to areas has caused a serious detriment to other species. There's a hypothesis that reintroducing sea otters would cause urchin populations to decline, hence enhancing kelp forests, therefore re-creating new habitat for those species to re-establish. However, this has not borne into reality at this stage. Yes, urchins have declined, but the kelp forests continue to decline. Not necessarily because of otters, but likely acidification. There are locations in Alaska (near Cordova, from my experience) where otters have decimated every living mollusk and crustacean which were once populous until the 1980's. They are resorting to the few Pacific Tomcod (Microgadus proximus) that remain as their mainstay. The Purple Graceful Crab (Cancer gracalis) was once abundant in my region of the world. In 1983, the biomass was estimated at 250,000 animals per sq. km, but since reintroduction of sea otters, it's > 10,000/km. The Spotted Ratfish (Hydrolagus colliei) is highly dependent upon the foragings of crabs to expose benthic organisms for food. There is no fishery, incidental or otherwise for these species, yet their decline has been significant nonetheless. That said, should we hunt otters again? No. There's no need (excluding aboriginal purposes, perhaps). Re-introduction of one species, often spells doom for another. Ethics are issues for mankind itself. Not for mankind's place in nature or how we perceive the animal kingdom to be.

If math is not applicable in the real world, then how is it we can identify the location of orbiting objects in space? Or know when a comet will show up? Or how to get to the moon? Copernicus was correct assuming the earth orbits the sun, but his math was incomplete. It was Kepler who discovered orbital patterns as "elliptical", not circular. ISS (ZARYA) 1 25544U 98067A 15280.87785174 .00007073 00000-0 11371-3 0 99962 25544 51.6449 241.5603 0006347 12.7972 82.0158 15.54191378965570 Anyone with a PC and these two lines of data can accurately calculate the position of the International Space Station. Epoch Orbital Inclination Right Ascension of Ascending Node (R.A.A.N.) Argument of Perigee Eccentricity Mean Motion Mean Anomaly Drag

More like... coming home to find out where the guns are hidden. Or worse yet and more often than not... "Don't let those unionized, government controlled educators take away your rights".

Kids die by gun nuts, no big deal huh? Thank you for demonstrating that your right to fight an imaginary tyrant supersedes the victim's right to life and liberty. Therein lies the problem.

In Obama' speech yesterday he challenged people compare these stats. I did that, without comment. Didn't seem to stop you from putting words in my mouth and adding another heap of obfuscating nonsense, though.

Racist jokes are told by racists. Only other racists laugh at them.

I am French Canadian and you are a blatant racist. For shame.

Apology accepted. So the highest rate in the world is negligible then? You folks seem to have an affinity for saying dumb $hit, then coming back a day later and saying something entirely different as to what you meant. That's why most of us outsiders have learned not to take Americans at face value in general, or with a grain of salt at best. Especially in ideology or gun laws. As to the other quote. Those are not my words. The name was removed and appears as though I said it. I'm not suggesting it's intentional, only that it be corrected, please.

In my defense, you did steer it that way. @baitandswitch And acknowledged it. So as to demonizing me with "get a grip" FAIL.

That's just berating. Nothing else. I contributed real stats, from a confirmed source. You've dismissed those facts as emotional, rhetorical and misleading all on one breath. Spin fail x3.

We have no interest in that. We're allies. Each others greatest trade partner. The longest unsecured border in the world. Neither faction considered a wall like in the south. Neither are falling over themselves trying to sneak into each other illegally. We're reciprocal on numerous trade, licensing and legal agreements. Each respect intellectual property rights. Many northern American cities accept our money, as we do yours. Most banks accept either, though often hard to get CDN in the US. (not that it's even needed) We're definitely not interested in inheriting the unresolveable social and political issues. You see, we agree in principle on just about everything else. Yet by a crappier death rate, siege mentality, and exceptionalism, you've fooled yourselves into thinking it's better, but it's not. I only need to look at the stats, the facts and science and history behind it to know. Despite what anyone says, no one can tell anyone otherwise, without overlooking or distorting those facts. There are a hundred other countries I'd rather live, than USA. I'll give America kudos for one big thing though. Generosity. Very often in international disasters or events, the USA is first on the scene with relief, to rescue, to rebuild. Immunization, disease prevention etc., excellent. By the end, almost always the largest contributor. Good on you guys! We do our very best to help with you in those times. To those ends, I'm proud we've stormed the beaches together and remain friends. My heart-of-hearts is sad on the gun issue, though. It's a hideous debacle to anyone on the outside looking in. It only gets worse, not better. Denial is pandemic. Actually, we had a war once and kicked your @ss, then burned down the White House. Not sure they teach it in your schools, so here's a link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington It wasn't until a couple of years later when you prevailed, but only from the south... we held the north. Actually another thing they probably don't teach in American schools, America lost more wars than they've won, and were late for a few of the big ones. America couldn't even secure one the smallest countries in the world, Iraq. Americans had one civil war. A second doesn't seem unlikely at the rate you're going. And THAT is a security concern to us. We end usually up with your draft dodgers and that's okay because they're usually given to be peaceful, but the next time around, genuine refugees and criminals might not be so easy to separate. (a little off topic, but in response to an off-topic comment) There you go with "the problem doesn't exist, it's your fault" mentality. Fail. Every day, 20 US Children Hospitalized w/Gun Injury (6% Die) I joined this thread to discuss the topic, but by your rules, can't speak for children. The attempt to pervert my compassion into your hysteria, fails miserably. Likewise, I submitted a simple table of known facts from a confirmed source. The PREREQUISITE of this forum, You can't refute them, so you've labeled them misleading as to impress them as wrong. Sooooo, transparent.

Agreed. All this pigeon-holing leads nowhere. Extremism is alive and well on either side of the coin. Most of us are down the middle in reality. I'm a pro-gun centrist. Yet, I'm accused of being on the wrong side of the law by waitforufo's assertion. That brand of bigotry and nonsense is used to label the moderate opponent as extreme, irrational or hysterical. Oh yes, there are plenty of those to the left of me who play the same game but generally falls on deaf ears as unworkable. (Hippy-dippy stuff, if ya know what I mean) Ignoring them is not dangerous, but ignoring foot stomping, flag waving gun nuts is. Most Canadians feel they are "well regulated" by our government for the most part. That's a thing which comes from a state of well being, not because somebody said so. I fought the long gun registry in Canada. For a few years, all hunting rifles had to be registered in the same manner as hand guns in the USA. Hunting rifles make for so-so protection devices, especially when compared to the alternatives. It made the RCMP's work harder, not easier. It turned out to be highly discriminatory in cases of domestic violence where the spouse (or other resident) of the permit holder was the instigator. When called to attend, the police would be advised the occupant was in possession of firearms, and as such were the precautionary approaches with guns drawn on the lawful person on the floor with his hands up, before a word was spoken. In some cases, the permit holder was killed by accident. We failed our own people by doing that. We got rid of the law entirely, rather than worded into something to be perverted by alarmists. Even though a law was imposed then repealed, the actual death rate itself didn't change during that period. With that, I'd be the first to admit (long before reading DC v Heller) some restrictions are ill-thought/written, but that does not mean they all are, as many would have us believe. As a child, we learned guns are for hunting, not people. While that may not be entirely the case, it was the premise from which practically every man, woman and child in this country acts upon. In the USA, children are taught that guns are for people, threats, rights (insert purpose) and least of all, hunting. I've been in shooting tournaments with Americans. Not to be mean, but the average American couldn't hit a bull in the ass with handful of rice at 2 paces. Put a gun in their hand, the first thing that comes to mind they need to shoot someone. The shakes are reflected in the scores. I cleaned up a tournament in the Orange County gun club, even though I had never held a .38 until the previous day. Our Canadian forces, in the coalition in Afghanistan are primarily snipers or field engineers. For example, the Canadian Army 2002 sniper team that saw two soldiers (Arron Perry/2,310 m and Rob Furlong/2,430 m) set consecutive new records, also made a number of kills at 1,500 m that are not counted. A Brit, Corporal of Horse (CoH) Craig Harrison leads, with highest best American at 4th position. Please don't mistake these points as off-topic. I'm only demonstrating underlying "stigmas" that go along even with the proper use of firearms in America, that needs to be addressed if the issue is to move along.

Oh, a suggestion! Thank you! I'm all for education, but throwing this into the laps of kids as not be more diligent ourselves on every other issue isn't going to fix anything. I was 15 when I got my "hunter safety course" and could buy, own, use a gun. That is a reasonable age. Any younger is a parental issue, which is where America failed it's children, miserably. These things need no regulation, or government involvement, only takes common sense, but it's in the FACTS (see below), not my opinion, that Americans fail that test miserably by putting ideology and amateur interpretations of law ahead of common sense. 85% of Canadians live within 100 miles of the American border, yet we have nowhere near the death rate on any level. Yet, think of us as wrong. You guys are your own worst enemy. Kids can be taught, but they're not rational. When I was kid, the police came to the school one day with a film about the dangers of blasting caps. Despite what was said and what we should do if encountered, what was the first thing we did when got out of school that day?.. kids went looking for blasting caps. Besides that, the partisanship in your country is so over the top, almost never to agree on the even simplest of issues, by default. No less this one. The party of "no", period. The NRA, neocons, gun nuts et al would never agree to the discussion, even if wedged to comply, it would take another two hundred years just to decide when to begin when to start, then another decade to discuss the language, then another hundred years after that to remove X clause and add Y clause. Only to arrive at yet another ambiguous conclusion, that had nothing to do with the issue in the first place. It's a good suggestion, albeit greatly flawed because we are only talking about kids killing kids, but lets assume it to be sound for a moment. How would this prevent death from the collateral damage of criminals? Would you agree this is only a step, not a sole solution to underlying issue? So far I see no willingness to give anything up. "I don't have to, because the law says I don't have to", only fails the test and perpetuates the carnage. I've said it before, if a terrorist killed a kid, you'd be screaming from the rooftops. Hypocrisy, is not lost in America. That says it all. Thank you, that made my day Canada United States % of Homocides by firearm ---------- 32 ---------------- 60 # of Homocides by firearm ---------- 173 ------------- 9,146 Homicide by firearm rate/100k pop -.51 -------------- 2.96 Average firearms per 100 people -- 30.8 ------------ 88.6 Total firearms ---------------------- 9,950,000 - 270,000,000 We have one third the guns, but only one sixth the death rate. By a rate of 200%, Americans cannot properly handle their guns when compared to Canadians.

I just read this entire thread. Thank you for this quote. It earned +1. It's the only rating offered, though other terrific points were made. Everyone might guess by my username and avatar, I'm a pearl farmer. On the face of it, I perform non-essential surgery on living animals for vanity and profit, but that's not entirely what I do. Please indulge me for a few moments, that I may convey some thoughts on animal testing. I do collections for government and private labs locally and around the world. A stratigraphy and paleontology lab in Spain, biomedical research and public health labs. My first revenue collections were barnacles, years ago. Everyday millions of barnacles, mussels and other marine invertebrates are scraped from ships and marinas. Allowing ships to become heavily fouled, significantly increases fuel consumption (not green) and hinders transportation (not economical). Rather than witness this waste on a daily basis, I investigated alternative utilization. I encountered a team doing spinal cord research, who were delighted to learn I could provide unlimited samples on demand. As a result of this work, partial recovery of some motor functions is possible, in some individuals. The flinch of a finger or a nod of the head might not seem like much to healthy folks, but to a person trapped in their own body, they've regained something significant which may be developed into a skill or improved quality of life. How can this be a bad thing? I picked through and recycled garbage, so others may benefit. I didn't kill anything. I only extended the life of a few critters a little longer, otherwise by the end of the day, they'd be dead too. Putting marine offal back into the water returns some nutrients to other organisms, but has been known to cause other issues. Tunicate and anemone populations mass proliferate when you do that. (among other species) The waste is required to landfills. I provide samples from several local marine stations for the CMP (Constant Monitoring Program). Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning (PSP) is an anomaly in nature where "any environmental stress" can give rise or fall the predator/food relationship of a nasty little dinoflagellate called Gonyaulax sp. If allowed to mass proliferate, they accumulate high concentrations in the digestive tracts and tissues of bivalves. While not toxic to the animal itself, it's paralytic, if not lethal to mammals who ingest them. Wild stock harvesting for food by indigenous people and recreationalists is huge in North America. Likewise, commercial oyster, clam and scallops industries are significant to local economies. Fresh shellfish, is a certifiably organic, wholesome food source. Our area has 12 stations. The entire Canadian coast has more than 200. Each station requires the collection of 50 grams of shucked tissue to perform the tests. We also test for domoic acid and fecal coliform. These are conducted monthly. This work is critical to public safety. It's also important to demonstrate to the world market, that shellfish is a safe product to eat. Some recent work involved a breakthrough in biomedical research. Mussels (and other mollusks) have hold fast attachment threads called byssus. These threads are closely related to silk, but what is most extraordinary is their ability for underwater adhesion. This "glue" has since been synthesized and is used as an alternative to the trauma of sutures in delicate surgery, especially near the heart. They've also created a type of pad/sponge material that gathers blood clots, preventing strokes in some high risk patients. I do personally funded field work on climate change and ocean acidification. At a time when the public is demanding research on the topic, government or ideologies might be obstructive, dismissive or ill funded. Over the years, I've accumulated quite a lot of data. It will be years before it's complete and published and I prefer not to speculate as to cause before it's published, but suffice it to say, patterns and trends are emerging. Any questions to that, ought to be raised in the Climate Change threads only, please. Over the years, I've done hundreds of collections for dozens of studies. Now that we got that out of the way, let me share some things about pearl farms. Pearl farming was always thought to be only possible in warm tropical waters with specific creatures. Nothing could be further from the truth. Natural pearls have been found on every continent, including Antarctica and under the Arctic ice. 90% of my technology, I devised myself through trial and error. Occasionally under great trepidation and abundant caution. I knowingly avoid certain procedures that may be viable, yet ethically questionable. I induce spawning, so as to purge all gametes by relaying to cold water (below the thermocline). I don't "starve" or "weaken" pre-graft candidates like the do in China, Japan or Indonesia. (Aussies don't for the most part either) Even then, they seem rather unaffected and mortality remains low, otherwise they wouldn't do it. Unlike the myth perpetuated by Kōkichi Mikimoto in the early 1900's (who incidentally, stole the technology from a ex-pat Brit, William Saville-Kent in Australia) cultured pearls do not use a grain of sand as an initiator. In natural pearls, sand is only implicated in less less than 1% of known cases, although it's higher in scallops, presumably because they are arduous swimmers. All pearls are cultured by a homogeneic trans graft of mantle epithelial tissue from a donor, into the connective myostracum of the host, usually annexed to the gonads with a shell bead nucleus. The grafted cells pick up the vascular supply of the host and continue to multiply and divide, until a sac forms and a pearl is born. The term "irritation" is also largely a myth. In any grafted tissue, whether a human, a flower or a tree, irritation causes inflammation, which cause disease or death. It's in the absence of irritation, where mortality is mitigated. I harvest my inventory from wild stocks. I collect donor/recipient candiates from biomasses of 300 animals or or more per square meter. Once grafted, are suspended at >6/sqm. Over their life span, they grow more than 200% faster than their wild siblings and many of them actually live longer. Predation is significantly less for sure, if not entirely eliminated with diligent husbandry. The surgical procedure is minor and swift. Mollusks get smashed around in nature all the time, so convalescence is virtually non-existent and recovery is nearly instant. Donors are sacrificed for color and surface quality of their shells and dictate the final appearance of the pearl. The hosts are suspended in seawater with a few menthol crystals added, not for pain, but to relax them. They open voluntarily. At harvest time, a mussel or oyster producing a quality gem is not sacrificed. Instead, the technician will select a similar sized bead, replace the pearl then put it back for another 18-36 months. Mollusks have no brains, hence they do not feel pain like we do. In fact they don't feel pain at all, they experience stimuli, which has already been discussed. (thank you for that too, btw) Mollusks do not have the ability to hide or retreat when attacked. They only retract or close, hence are not sentient. Pearl farms remove pollutants and contaminates from the water column. They poop a lot, but benthic organisms do well to clean that up, especially if inventory densities are restricted to the ability to manage it naturally. Fallowing is used as a precaution, nonetheless. All shells are beached for a short period to weather, then returned to the sea, offsetting the carbon footprint. Pearl farmers have everything to lose and nothing to gain from bad practices, neglect or indifference to their inventories. At the only other pearl farm in North America, in the Sea of Cortez, wild spat fall from their operations have reintroduced the once endangered Rainbow Lipped Oyster (Pteria sterna) back to historical numbers. As such, a new fishery and natural pearl industry rose from the ashes and brought new money into old communities. I love animals, birds, plants and nature, immensely. A photographer, a film maker and identifier, mentored by the late renowned biologist, Ed Ricketts at his single most favorite collection spot. With that, my work is every bit a philosophical undertaking as it is an occupation. I'm a strong opponent of pollution and an advocate for numerous environmental issues. I'm operating within a United Nation's Biosphere designation and as such required to uphold ethical, sustainable, non-alienable manners, on top of local, provincial and federal regulations. I do regular interpretive shoreline walks for kids and adults for free. I volunteer at the local salmon hatchery, producing tens of thousands of fish to be released back into the wild annually. I'm given to be kind, not cruel. I take only what I can use with humility and gratitude. I make very effort to return more to mankind than I've taken. Pearls are the world's only biotic gem. Revered by kings and queens for centuries, pearls have become affordable and may be enjoyed by anyone. If a girl is wearing a pearl, I notice. I'm always moved when a customer selects a pearl, because they are in love. Thank you for taking the time to read my rather long post.

As a scientist, opinion has no bearing. Science is based on testable facts not ideology. Water expands when it freezes and breaks the container, hose, block etc. that it's in. That really sucks to finance or convenience, but my opinion on that matter is meaningless in chemistry or physics. As to law, I'm no lawyer. Therefore my opinion is not different than yours where others are concerned, but I can tell you I have ten years under my belt as the representative of a class action in the USA. 9th Circuit - State of Oregon and Appellate Court in San Francisco (I will cite, if you insist) In that ten years, other than under deposition in chambers, never spoke a single word in open court. So basically, I learned to listen, learn, read, comprehend maritime law as it applies international incidents. BP and Exxon are tough customers, but we prevailed. To this day, I consult with law firms, industry and organizations on the precedents of that action. I have a history with a reasonable grasp of the law in both mine and your countries. Debating you is easier than swatting flies. No, I don't think defendants get convicted when they follow the letter of the law but not the spirit. I'm saying kids get killed when gun owners are negligent and any proactive solutions or changes to the letter of law are based on the spirit. In fact, it's the prerequisite, as in the public interest. As to the rest of your statement "Canada must have interesting courts proceedings. I can just hear the prosecutors closing arguments. "Sure the defendant showed that he followed the letter of the law, but he just didn't follow the vibe." That might convince the courts in Canada, but I doubt they would in the US." is delusional nonsense. Yes indeed, the law is the law. Negligence seems lost on you though, as though it's automatically excusable because guns were involved. You are dead wrong, again on regulation, That's no opinion, it's fact. Regulation: noun 1. a law, rule, or other order prescribed by authority, especially to regulate conduct. 2. the act of regulating or the state of being regulated. Ignore #1 all you want, it's NOT going away any time soon. You are also dead wrong on "inalienable" in·al·ien·a·ble inˈālēənəb(ə)l/ adjective adjective: inalienable unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor. I don't read anywhere in the law or the meaning of the word, where this cannot be regulated. High cap clips, permits etc.. are ... government (I'll spell it for you) r. e. g. u. l. a. t. i. o. n. s., with standing in law. DC v Heller is not a catch-all precedent. In fact, it's scope is greatly limited. The use/lack of gun locks is a tiny fraction of a much bigger picture that has yet to be discussed, so long as you keep parroting it. By the way, legal precedents are not science, it's law. You've been asked, many times to back up your claims with scientific facts, not opinions on how law reads. I agree with you, the right to bear arms is inalienable to law abiding citizens. Your country takes that right away from criminals, so no matter how you look at it, it's alienation. Surely you don't mean to suggest all criminals should be allowed to carry guns, do you? Did you know that my right to bear arms is inalienable too? Nobody can take my guns. I'm allowed to keep them because of the simplest of property laws, not some ambiguously worded amendment that's been the crux of discord or fodder for willful ignorance and carnage for centuries. No, you guys just had to be different, now it's paid for in domestic blood, young and old. Yes, British Columbia is a wonderful place. I really hope for your sake, and ours... you leave your guns at home when you visit. Do you feel safe when you're here? Do you realize more than half of the declared/undeclared guns seized are brought in by Americans were permitted on the other side? Is that responsible gun ownership? Those who openly declared them are often given the benefit of the doubt as to charges, after all they didn't hide anything, but it's still illegal. The weapon is never returned, it's destroyed.The traveler will usually be allowed to proceed into or return to Canada with no restrictions. That's pretty fair, I'd say considering they were negligent in researching our laws or presumed only their laws apply while here. I'M AN AMERICAN, GODDAMMIT!!! pfft. Those who get caught with undeclared guns, go to jail. Once their time is served, deported with a lifetime ban on re-entry. And no, I read DC v Heller, word for word and understand it for what it is and why it was tested. However, your take on it is dubious, IMHO, even a stretch (not on locks, evidently), on the issue in general. I don't look upon it as an excuse or a consequence incidental to the accidental or negligent usage of firearms, though. Hence the latter part of your comment, "But I guess by not reading it you can deny it exists" is just more nonsense.

I stand corrected, thank you. I couldn't agree more, a federal law along these lines is reasonable and prudent.