Today I Learned

[bimbo36]

 

Schrodingers wave equation is a differential equation of motion

 

lol

[koti]

If I say something else about elephants, I'll contact you first.

1

[bimbo36]

What is that gold like thing ? its looks like plastic

[Daedalus]

Today I learned that "Eulagisca gigantea" a nasty, giant polynoid worm living in water can grow up to a foot in lengh. Not much known about it besides that its big and probably predatory. This thing scares the crap out of me.

 

http://echinoblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/10-of-weirdest-antarctic-invertebrates.html?m=1

 

Thanks Koti, that thing will haunt my nightmares till I die...

[koti]

What is that gold like thing ? its looks like plastic

Presumably these are its limbs which put in wave like motion propel the thing really quickly in the direction of your throat.

 

 

Thanks Koti, that thing will haunt my nightmares till I die...

At your service Sir

[bimbo36]

Looks like a beautiful carpet . lol

[Itoero]

Today I learned about the Kondo effect.

Normally, resistance through metals decreases as temperature is lowered, but that is not the case with some metals because the presence of cobalt or other magnetic impurities in the metals.

https://phys.org/news/2011-06-electrons-entangled.html#jCp

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kondo_effect

[Itoero]

Today I also learned a protist is any eukaryotic organism that is not an animal, plant or fungus.

[DrmDoc]

Today I learned that the oldest stone tools ever found were those found in West Turkana, Kenya. The set of sharpened stones discovered at Lake Turkana date from 3.3 million years ago and predate Oldowan tools by 700,000 years. An amazing discovery of tool making that predates the emergence of modern humans by over 3 million years.

[CharonY]

Yeah, I've seen some live in Africa so I'm an expert

 

Today I learned that "Eulagisca gigantea" a nasty, giant polynoid worm living in water can grow up to a foot in lengh. Not much known about it besides that its big and probably predatory. This thing scares the crap out of me.

 

http://echinoblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/10-of-weirdest-antarctic-invertebrates.html?m=1

 

In that case, let's talk about the bobbit worm (Eunice aphroditois).

 

 

It grows up to 3m (I believe around 10 ft in silly units), It can get into aquariums by hiding in rocks. It also seems to produce a nice toxin, though I think it has not been properly characterized.

 

 

https://vimeo.com/28280553

[koti]

 

In that case, let's talk about the bobbit worm (Eunice aphroditois).

 

 

It grows up to 3m (I believe around 10 ft in silly units), It can get into aquariums by hiding in rocks. It also seems to produce a nice toxin, though I think it has not been properly characterized.

 

 

https://vimeo.com/28280553

Adorable. On top of the fact that both of these warms are scary af, they also both have cheesy, cheapo markings/coloring. Quintessence of nope.

[EdEarl]

Recent NASA video of Jupiter show it to be really beautiful.

[Lord Antares]

 

Thanks Koti, that thing will haunt my nightmares till I die...

 

Still not as terrifying as the gejigeji...

 

[DrmDoc]

Today I learned the insidious reason why, historically, women's clothing were without pockets. It seems having no pockets were another way men of an earlier era sought to control women. Later, the fashion industry saw pocketless women's clothing as way to increase sales of handbags and purses.

[Lord Antares]

This sounds like utter bollocks.

[DrmDoc]

This sounds like utter bollocks.

 

Let me guess, you're a male and didn't read the article right? I found the article illuminating and its sources credible though you, perhaps, did not.

[CharonY]

I find it a bit heavy on inductive reasoning and a bit light on contextualization (it is just not a very scholarly article). I have read that some trends of women's clothing were essentially co-opting male trends as part of the feminist movement. But I am not sure what historians have to say on the conclusions by the author of the above article.

 

Here (still not a scholarly article but with more sources) it is implied that the loss of pockets was driven by a change in waistline.

Edited July 21, 2017 by CharonY

[Lord Antares]

 

Let me guess, you're a male and didn't read the article right? I found the article illuminating and its sources credible though you, perhaps, did not.

 

You are half right. I skimmed through everything and this contains no evidence and no concrete case. Certainly not enough to make any conclusion. Sounds like a shitty political agenda. But as long as it serves to take down the evil male pig, right?

[DrmDoc]

I find it a bit heavy on inductive reasoning and a bit light on contextualization (it is just not a very scholarly article). I have read that some trends of women's clothing were essentially co-opting male trends as part of the feminist movement. But I am not sure what historians have to say on the conclusions by the author of the above article.

 

Here (still not a scholarly article but with more sources) it is implied that the loss of pockets was driven by a change in waistline.

 

The linked article in my OP was based on this article by journalist Chelsea Summers. Her article explored and detailed the historical and political implications of pockets and its distinction among the sexes. Chelsea wrote:

 

It’s not to say that pocket sexism isn’t true. It is to say that pockets are more than sexist: they’re political. One way to look at the transfiguration of women’s tied-on, capacious pockets of the mid-eighteenth century into the early nineteenth century’s tiny, hand-held reticule is to consider that this transformation occurred as the French Revolution, a time that violently challenged established notions of property, privacy, and propriety. Women’s pockets were private spaces they carried into the public with increasing freedom, and during a revolutionary time, this freedom was very, very frightening. The less women could carry, the less freedom they had. Take away pockets happily hidden under garments, and you limit women’s ability to navigate public spaces, to carry seditious (or merely amorous) writing, or to travel unaccompanied.

 

 

Chelsea also cited this quote, among others, as a continuing example of the sexist attitude regarding pockets during an earlier era:

 

An 1899 New York Times piece makes the somewhat tongue-in-cheek claim that civilization itself is founded on pockets. "As we become more civilized, we need more pockets," the piece says, "No pocketless people has ever been great since pockets were invented, and the female sex cannot rival us while it is pocketless."

 

 

This article provides a more in-depth discussion of the political role of pockets in women's fashion.

 

 

You are half right. I skimmed through everything and this contains no evidence and no concrete case. Certainly not enough to make any conclusion. Sounds like a shitty political agenda. But as long as it serves to take down the evil male pig, right?

 

I'm male as well, but "evil male pig" are your words not mine.

Edited July 21, 2017 by DrmDoc

[Lord Antares]

/her quote

 

All I see is a bunch of talk with no evidence. She is making stuff up as she goes along to fit her narrative. Of course, I could be wrong, but she would need to convince me.

 

It's like if I recognized that men's clothes have less colour and then I inferred that this must be because women want to limit men in their choice. They want men to have less freedom over their clothing. Exactly the same thing. I just make it fit my narrative.

 

 

I'm male as well, but "evil male pig" are your words not mine.

 

I know you are. Those words are implied.

[CharonY]

The second article seems to be more interesting. Will peruse it when time permits.

[DrmDoc]

 

All I see is a bunch of talk with no evidence. She is making stuff up as she goes along to fit her narrative. Of course, I could be wrong, but she would need to convince me.

 

It's like if I recognized that men's clothes have less colour and then I inferred that this must be because women want to limit men in their choice. They want men to have less freedom over their clothing. Exactly the same thing. I just make it fit my narrative.

 

 

 

I know you are. Those words are implied.

 

Chelsea's article regards attitudes of an earlier era, which is supported by the various quotes from the published articles and statements she researched. If you have not fully read the entire article, why should anyone here consider your opinion of Ms. Summers article valid? Given your apparent mindset and disinterest in the details on the subject, why would you even bother to comment?

[Itoero]

Today I learned the insidious reason why, historically, women's clothing were without pockets. It seems having no pockets were another way men of an earlier era sought to control women. Later, the fashion industry saw pocketless women's clothing as way to increase sales of handbags and purses.

Very interesting!

You can better see a woman's body without (filled) pockets. In order to attract men, it might have been better for women not to have pockets.

On a ball, women wear a dress without pockets so you can see every inch of their body.

Men wear a costume with pockets...

Women put in their purse what men put in their pockets.

[Endy0816]

Though a falling banana didn't set Henry Cavendish on the path of weighing the planet, his family would later lend their name to one.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Cavendish#Biography

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Cavendish,_6th_Duke_of_Devonshire#Other_interests

[DrmDoc]

Today I learned why transplanted organs are rejected by a host's immune system.  The rejection occurs on a molecular level of protein inactions between the SIRP-a of the transplanted organ and CD47 of the host's immune system.