Vanishing honeybees mystify scientists

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
They probably got sick of having Bush as president : ).

By all mean, join them.

 

[Arcex]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
They probably got sick of having Bush as president : ).

By all mean, join them.

Ok, where can we go to be free of Bush's influence...

Normally I'd say the moon but he's been on a kick for the last few years to return us to the place we finished with 40 years ago, I'm guessing he wants to check for oil...

Ooh, we could go to Iraq, clearly he isn't having much of an influence there.

 

[piasabird]

Maybe it is genetic crops having a side effect that is cumulative??

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
They probably got sick of having Bush as president : ).

This is simply trolling, indicitive of what is wrong with P&N, and should be vacationable.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: shira

Honeybees are not the only pollinators whose numbers are dropping. Other animals that do this essential job -- non-honeybees, wasps, flies, beetles, birds and bats -- have decreasing populations as well. But honeybees are the big actors in commercial pollination efforts.

"Non-honeybee?" EVERYTHING is a "non-honeybee" (except, of course, honeybees).

Reuters needs to hire another editor.

There are clearly refering to bees which do not produce honey, of which their are a number of varieties. You might want to work on your reading comprehension

 

[M00T]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
They probably got sick of having Bush as president : ).

This is simply trolling, indicitive of what is wrong with P&N, and should be vacationable.

Actually, it seems more like light political humor.

 

[bsobel]

Actually, it seems more like light political humor.

Yea, if it showed up occasionally, sure. But it happens in EVERY thread in P&N. It's almost impossible to find a post where someone doesn't try to derail it this way. You'd think this would be a fairly 'neutral' thread, however once again...

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
They probably got sick of having Bush as president : ).

This is simply trolling, indicitive of what is wrong with P&N, and should be vacationable.

Oh the irony :laugh:

Kettle meet pot

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
They probably got sick of having Bush as president : ).

This is simply trolling, indicitive of what is wrong with P&N, and should be vacationable.

It is trolling to joke around? Ouch.


-----------------------------------
Thread crapping is able to earn time off.

Anandtech Moderator

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
They probably got sick of having Bush as president : ).

This is simply trolling, indicitive of what is wrong with P&N, and should be vacationable.

Oh the irony :laugh:

Kettle meet pot

Says the King of Kettles.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
They probably got sick of having Bush as president : ).

Wow, that's quite a moderate, independent response to a "bees population shrinking" topic. :roll:

A smiley indicates not being serious. Plus, a president cannot possibly influence bees, so it obviously isn't serious.

Btw, does your response indicate that people that are independent cannot like bush?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
They probably got sick of having Bush as president : ).

Wow, that's quite a moderate, independent response to a "bees population shrinking" topic. :roll:

A smiley indicates not being serious. Plus, a president cannot possibly influence bees, so it obviously isn't serious.

Btw, does your response indicate that people that are independent cannot like bush?

What do people who are independent have to do with you?

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
They probably got sick of having Bush as president : ).

Wow, that's quite a moderate, independent response to a "bees population shrinking" topic. :roll:

A smiley indicates not being serious. Plus, a president cannot possibly influence bees, so it obviously isn't serious.

Btw, does your response indicate that people that are independent cannot like bush?

Who do people who are independent have to do with you?

I know there is an attempt at being clever somewhere in there...

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
They probably got sick of having Bush as president : ).

This is simply trolling, indicitive of what is wrong with P&N, and should be vacationable.

It is trolling to joke around? Ouch.

In your own words "You need to be intelligent to be funny and witty"

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: shira

Honeybees are not the only pollinators whose numbers are dropping. Other animals that do this essential job -- non-honeybees, wasps, flies, beetles, birds and bats -- have decreasing populations as well. But honeybees are the big actors in commercial pollination efforts.

"Non-honeybee?" EVERYTHING is a "non-honeybee" (except, of course, honeybees).

Reuters needs to hire another editor.

There are clearly refering to bees which do not produce honey, of which their are a number of varieties. You might want to work on your reading comprehension

My reading comprehension if fine: I know full well what was intended, but that's not what the writer wrote.

A "non-bear" is anything that isn't a bear. A "non-honeybee" is anything that isn't a honeybee.

Better would have been, "Honeybees are not the only pollinators whose numbers are dropping. Other types of bees - plus wasps, flies, beetles, birds, and bats - have decreasing populations as well. But honeybees are the big actors in commercial pollination efforts."

 

[alchemize]

OP needs to be banned for posting such a trollish topic, look what it's devolved into

 

[bsobel]

A "non-bear" is anything that isn't a bear. A "non-honeybee" is anything that isn't a honeybee.

Sigh. I forget how argumentative people are in P&N even over things such as spelling and grammar. That said, your example is flawed. An equivilant example would be to say a 'non-brownbear' which would indicate bears which are non-brown. Saying a non-honeybee indicates bee's which do not produce honey.

To have an apples to apples comparison to your 'non-bear' example the author would have had to written 'non-bees'. Perhaps you could argue it should have been 'non-honey bees' instead of 'non-honeybees' but thats about it.

The term 'non-honey bees' is a well adopted term, even if you are not aware of it.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: bsobel

A "non-bear" is anything that isn't a bear. A "non-honeybee" is anything that isn't a honeybee.

Sigh. I forget how argumentative people are in P&N even over things such as spelling and grammar. That said, your example is flawed. An equivilant example would be to say a 'non-brownbear' which would indicate bears which are non-brown. Saying a non-honeybee indicates bee's which do not produce honey.

To have an apples to apples comparison to your 'non-bear' example the author would have had to written 'non-bees'. Perhaps you could argue it should have been 'non-honey bees' instead of 'non-honeybees' but thats about it.

The term 'non-honey bees' is a well adopted term, even if you are not aware of it.

I have no problem at all with "non-honey bees." "Non-honeybees" is a different matter altogether.

And note that the animal is actually a "brown bear" (not a "brownbear"). So, again, "non-brown bear" is perfectly clear.

Little things do make a difference. I'm sure you're familiar with examples of how a misplaced comma can wreak havoc on the meaning of a sentence.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: alchemize
OP needs to be banned for posting such a trollish topic, look what it's devolved into

Christ, I think I agree with you there. I was hoping this would be a referendum on global warming (or at least man's interference with nature) and not a grammar-based pissing match.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
They probably got sick of having Bush as president : ).

This is simply trolling, indicitive of what is wrong with P&N, and should be vacationable.

It is trolling to joke around? Ouch.

In your own words "You need to be intelligent to be funny and witty"

Yep. It made perfect sense in the context of these forums... and it is definitely cute and chuckle worthy. You are the one trolling by asking ot ban someone for making a joke(despite whether you think it is funny or not). You seem to think joking is bannable. That exemplifies trolling.

 

[iamaelephant]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: bsobel

A "non-bear" is anything that isn't a bear. A "non-honeybee" is anything that isn't a honeybee.

Sigh. I forget how argumentative people are in P&N even over things such as spelling and grammar. That said, your example is flawed. An equivilant example would be to say a 'non-brownbear' which would indicate bears which are non-brown. Saying a non-honeybee indicates bee's which do not produce honey.

To have an apples to apples comparison to your 'non-bear' example the author would have had to written 'non-bees'. Perhaps you could argue it should have been 'non-honey bees' instead of 'non-honeybees' but thats about it.

The term 'non-honey bees' is a well adopted term, even if you are not aware of it.

I have no problem at all with "non-honey bees." "Non-honeybees" is a different matter altogether.

And note that the animal is actually a "brown bear" (not a "brownbear"). So, again, "non-brown bear" is perfectly clear.

Little things do make a difference. I'm sure you're familiar with examples of how a misplaced comma can wreak havoc on the meaning of a sentence.

Text

Learning is fun. Try it some time. Stop taking things out of context.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: iamaelephant

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: bsobel

A "non-bear" is anything that isn't a bear. A "non-honeybee" is anything that isn't a honeybee.

Sigh. I forget how argumentative people are in P&N even over things such as spelling and grammar. That said, your example is flawed. An equivilant example would be to say a 'non-brownbear' which would indicate bears which are non-brown. Saying a non-honeybee indicates bee's which do not produce honey.

To have an apples to apples comparison to your 'non-bear' example the author would have had to written 'non-bees'. Perhaps you could argue it should have been 'non-honey bees' instead of 'non-honeybees' but thats about it.

The term 'non-honey bees' is a well adopted term, even if you are not aware of it.

I have no problem at all with "non-honey bees." "Non-honeybees" is a different matter altogether.

And note that the animal is actually a "brown bear" (not a "brownbear"). So, again, "non-brown bear" is perfectly clear.

Little things do make a difference. I'm sure you're familiar with examples of how a misplaced comma can wreak havoc on the meaning of a sentence.

Text

Learning is fun. Try it some time. Stop taking things out of context.

I assume that by including this link you are making a statement that if the context makes the writer's meaning clear, everything is copacetic. (Hey, look at me, making an accurate inference from your implication.)

But if you're correct, why bother to stress all kinds of things when teaching the English language?

"He likes slasher films better than me."

The intended meaning is perfectly clear, but the "true" meaning is inane.

 

[Ns1]

They're not saying this is 100% the cause but it's pretty convincing.

Working with nearby beekeepers, Harvard researcher Chensheng Lu and his team treated 12 colonies with tiny levels of neonics and kept six control hives free of the popular chemicals. All 18 hives made it through summer without any apparent trouble. Come winter, though, the bees in six of the treated hives vanished, leaving behind empty colonies—the classic behavior of colony collapse disorder.

http://www.bulletinofinsectology.org/pdfarticles/vol67-2014-125-130lu.pdf

 

[shira]

Rapture. The Bees were right, we were wrong. Time to adopt a Queen Bee and start a shrine!

Alien abduction.

 

[MasterOfUsers]

Gonna say the increased unadultered extreme usage of roundup which is known to kill bees. We can use that and do use that at a scale now when we don't have to care about crops dying from it and it is known to kill insect life where it is used. In almost all nations it's classified as a class 3 toxin, harmful to all plant and animal life but in the US, it's good to go to spray it on consumer foods.