Comments on: Not Exactly Pocket Science – panic aboard the Titanic, the rise of polar bears and emasculated frogs

By: DynamicUno

DynamicUno — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 23:29:24 +0000

I like it! I think keeping NEPS in this format (several quick posts in one entry) is better than spreading them out to several entries.

By: Tim Lucas

Tim Lucas — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 13:29:00 +0000

I like the format of 3 short stories in one. It means you settle down and read the whole post, but get 3 stories.
With the boat sinking stories, it seems that either more data will be fairly readily available (i.e. there is death demographics for other ships that have sunk), or there isn’t and there won’t be any time soon. If there is the data, I don’t know why he hasn’t found it, if there isn’t the data there is no point saying “we need more data”.

By: IanW

IanW — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 17:01:13 +0000

You realize that the Titanic was an ice-elated event, right – so it’s definitely going to snow the numbers….

By: southlakesmom

southlakesmom — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 20:39:16 +0000

Thanks all; I think I really was wondering whether two separate questions, i.e. adapting as a species as well as interbreeding with other kinds of bears. Hexkid, that is absolutely fascinating — I wonder what the downstream result of that will be. I’ll be watching for stories on grolars and pizzlies!

By: Chris M.

Chris M. — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 17:51:12 +0000

Well worth the NEPS, maybe a 2:1 long post/short post ratio, if they’re all three like this. As far as the splitting, I personally prefer them all together, but it wouldn’t be much of an inconvenience to split them; sounds like it might be considerably more helpful for the RSS feed folks than it is harmful to me. Still, I agree with the dilution possibility, it’s just instinctively nice to have the majority of the articles be the in-depth work that I keep coming back for. If you’ve got a high ratio of rss feed readers to page viewers, though, might be worth it!

By: Brian Slesinsky

Brian Slesinsky — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 17:25:32 +0000

I’d prefer each NEPS article as a separate post, so that each one will have its own headline in Google Reader and they’re separately sharable.

By: hexkid

hexkid — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 16:50:57 +0000

SouthlakesMom, I was always taught that there is no such thing as a stupid question only stupid answers.
The previous commenters are correct, it would be much more difficult (& take too long) for polar bears to use evolution to counteract the loss of their habitat. There is however evidence that as their habitat shrinks & they are moving into areas now occupied by grizzlies which can result in interbreeding. There are reports of hybrids called grolar bears or pizzlies (depending on which breed is the father).

By: Ed

Ed — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 08:59:30 +0000

Oh and southlakesmom, basically, what Brooks said. V.different for the bears to adapt to, and spread through, a NEW “fresh” habitat than to move back to an “old” one where there’s already a successful competitor.
Pls never be afraid to ask questions here. Plenty of people reveal their ignorance
in blog comments without realising it so asking a constructive question is always welcomed

By: Ed Yong

Ed Yong — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 08:54:39 +0000

Not_hippy – no no no no no no! NEPS is a supplement to NERS. if I ever get the sense that the quality and the quantity of the longer posts is suffering, NEPS goes.
Toos – actually if I do my job right, you should be able to read the first few paragrahs of any NERS post and get the gist, although I try and have more of a narrative than a traditional news piece and I leave good stuff for the end to reward people who actually RTFA
Uschi – that was my thought too

By: Uschi

Uschi — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 07:41:23 +0000

NEPS is very cool! I enjoy the long posts as well, but for a lot of stuff I would just like to get the jist of it, and this is the perfect format. It would be great if you’d keep it! I also like having multiple short reports in one post. Otherwise it would seem like diluting value: like putting less in a pack for the same price (crude analogy I know…)