Solution: feed more people to the sharks!

Might be able to even the numbers out a bit if we armed them with lasers...

Was the sad tag off mourning the planet we're ruining?

I didn't know there was a NHL team that was named Humans or that they were in the playoffs.

"There is a very large range and that speaks to the quality of data, which is not great," said Dr Demian Chapman from Stony Brook University in New York, US.

"Certainly 100 million is the median estimate and that's the best estimate there is," he added.

 Grade for Statistics 101 - C.  Median means middle.  In the series 10, 10, 10, 50, 100, 500, 1000, the median is 50.

China won't stop until all of the world's animals are ground up and sold as penis enhancements.

Woohoo humans! kill all other species on earth and we win. Amirite?

What's up with China always dusting their feet with tiger balls and clensing their bowels with rhino horn. And now this, why can't they just eat genetically engineered common animals like us.

How can they be considered endangered if we can kill around 275,000/day and they survive (based on 100 million/year)?

I like me some tasty tasty seafood but that's ridiculous.  Would it be so hard to set some reasonable limits and require....oh I don't know....them to take the whole fish and use it for something useful?  Even cat food.  Surely the rest of the shark is tasty just not as valuable.

Leave the sharks alone.  They're in the ocean.  Anyone can stay out of the ocean if they choose.

F*ckin' bears, otoh...

Glancing Blow: "There is a very large range and that speaks to the quality of data, which is not great," said Dr Demian Chapman from Stony Brook University in New York, US.

"Certainly 100 million is the median estimate and that's the best estimate there is," he added.

 Grade for Statistics 101 - C.  Median means middle.  In the series 10, 10, 10, 50, 100, 500, 1000, the median is 50.

It is? For years I was thinking it was the midpoint between the highest and lowest values of a set. D'oy.

Glancing Blow: "There is a very large range and that speaks to the quality of data, which is not great," said Dr Demian Chapman from Stony Brook University in New York, US.

"Certainly 100 million is the median estimate and that's the best estimate there is," he added.

 Grade for Statistics 101 - C.  Median means middle.  In the series 10, 10, 10, 50, 100, 500, 1000, the median is 50.

0,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,9999 also has 50 as the median value, and maybe it's the best estimate because most estimators agree on it.

I'm not worried about humans or sharks, tho both can be wacked, it's the mother farkin snakes that scare the shiat out of me.

That's why I quit flying on those airplanes.

if only there were some sort of week where we could celebrate these animals.

thisiszombocom: if only there were some sort of week where we could celebrate these animals.

Been done.

What's wrong, subby? Misplace the "sad" tag?

I've only seen two sharks in the wild. One was a nurse shark sleeping under some coral, the other was a whitetip reef shark. Amazing animals. The coolest animals in the ocean.

/still don't want to meet up with a tiger shark
//I know they're out there

The following things kill more people in a year than sharks:

Hammers
Vending Machines
Hippos
Ants
Dogs
Jelly Fish
Icicles
Falling out of bed
Choking or hanging yourself when jerking off

I blame the orientals for this.

brandent: I like me some tasty tasty seafood but that's ridiculous.  Would it be so hard to set some reasonable limits and require....oh I don't know....them to take the whole fish and use it for something useful?  Even cat food.  Surely the rest of the shark is tasty just not as valuable.

From the little bit I remembers shark fin soup is far from tasty; bland, flavourless, and disappointing. However, it is considered tradition to eat at special occasions (maybe just weddings...) by Chinese and will so continue to be eaten until it gets far too out of hand.

/not just plain 'out of hand' like it has been for a while

sounds like they get them cut their fins off, and toss them back.

more easy meals for the sharks left in the water.

Thanks for the Meme-ries:

Came here for this. Leaving weeping for our species.

So, we are winning.  Right?

Jument: Solution: feed more people to the sharks!

I like the cut of your jib good sir!

Thanks for the Meme-ries: [i291.photobucket.com image 850x510]

The human in that photo is Tom Campbell, and in addition to being the greatest underwater cinematographer on the planet and a good friend, he's done more for the survival of our oceans than any of you will ever know.

DoctorCal: LoneWolf343: midpoint between the highest and lowest values of a set

That's the midrange.

ArcadianRefugee: 0,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,9999 also has 50 as the median value, and maybe it's the best estimate because most estimators agree on it.

So, because it happens to equal the mode? Why not just say the mode is the best estimate?

Well, yeah. It could be a misunderstanding of statistical language, or just an oddly phrased way of saying "it's the median value and the best estimate".

Smeggy Smurf: The solution is to feed the sharks better.  I suggest we start with lawyers

Start with the shark killers: more sharks [& rhinos, tigers, elephants.....] around & reduced population levels

/hotlinked

DoctorCal: LoneWolf343: midpoint between the highest and lowest values of a set

That's the midrange.

ArcadianRefugee: 0,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,9999 also has 50 as the median value, and maybe it's the best estimate because most estimators agree on it.

So, because it happens to equal the mode? Why not just say the mode is the best estimate?

What can I say? It has been a while since I studied statistics, and it was the one field of mathematics that I wasn't very good at.

Isn't there any other part of the shark that can be eaten, or used in any fashion? I mean, cutting the fin off is gonna kill it anyways, at least make a few pairs of boots too...

What are the odds that I will be eaten by a shark if I'm a paraplegic who lives in an Idaho mountain town?  What are the odds I'll get eaten by a shark if I take a swim in Caribbean waters wearing Lady GaGa's meat suit?

LoneWolf343: DoctorCal: LoneWolf343: midpoint between the highest and lowest values of a set

That's the midrange.

ArcadianRefugee: 0,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,9999 also has 50 as the median value, and maybe it's the best estimate because most estimators agree on it.

So, because it happens to equal the mode? Why not just say the mode is the best estimate?

What can I say? It has been a while since I studied statistics, and it was the one field of mathematics that I wasn't very good at.

perhaps this will help

/god help me

mamoru: It's not. Many, perhaps even most shark species would probably qualified as threatened if not outright endangered. However, since we don't have a very complete survey of shark species and their populations, it is very hard to quantify the damage being done.

Ok, just playing devil's advocate here, but if you don't have good data about shark species or populations, and it's hard to quantify the damage being done, how do you know it isn't sustainable?

belhade: Isn't there any other part of the shark that can be eaten, or used in any fashion? I mean, cutting the fin off is gonna kill it anyways, at least make a few pairs of boots too...

Yeah, but if you keep the whole shark...

...yer gonna need a bigger boat.

untaken_name: Ok, just playing devil's advocate here, but if you don't have good data about shark species or populations, and it's hard to quantify the damage being done, how do you know it isn't sustainable?

Because the low estimate isn't sustainable either?  As XKCD says, there's a form of "relevant accuracy" where there's no meaningful difference between 10 million and 100 million.

It's unlikely any of the numbers in the entire range of their estimates is sustainable.  We don't have good data on sharks but we have plenty of other data to extrapolate from, having nearly wiped out other species that reproduce much faster and earlier in life.

dragonchild: untaken_name: Ok, just playing devil's advocate here, but if you don't have good data about shark species or populations, and it's hard to quantify the damage being done, how do you know it isn't sustainable?

Because the low estimate isn't sustainable either?  As XKCD says, there's a form of "relevant accuracy" where there's no meaningful difference between 10 million and 100 million.

It's unlikely any of the numbers in the entire range of their estimates is sustainable.  We don't have good data on sharks but we have plenty of other data to extrapolate from, having nearly wiped out other species that reproduce much faster and earlier in life.

Okay, but again, how do you know? If there are 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 sharks, and we're killing 100 million, that's sustainable. What I am saying is, what evidence do we have to suggest that it is unsustainable? I don't just want more assurances that it is. I'm not even skeptical, but how do you convince someone who is? Just more "cause we say so"?

untaken_name: dragonchild: untaken_name: Ok, just playing devil's advocate here, but if you don't have good data about shark species or populations, and it's hard to quantify the damage being done, how do you know it isn't sustainable?

Because the low estimate isn't sustainable either?  As XKCD says, there's a form of "relevant accuracy" where there's no meaningful difference between 10 million and 100 million.

It's unlikely any of the numbers in the entire range of their estimates is sustainable.  We don't have good data on sharks but we have plenty of other data to extrapolate from, having nearly wiped out other species that reproduce much faster and earlier in life.

Okay, but again, how do you know? If there are 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 sharks, and we're killing 100 million, that's sustainable. What I am saying is, what evidence do we have to suggest that it is unsustainable? I don't just want more assurances that it is. I'm not even skeptical, but how do you convince someone who is? Just more "cause we say so"?

Look at breeding rates combined with natural known ranges of sharks, age etc?  I don't know, I'm not an ichthyologist, I'm just thinking and typing.  While not exact there must be ways to narrow it down.