1. Life As A Dung Beetle Mac Os Download
2. Life As A Dung Beetle Mac Os X

A heap of dung or refuse - midden, muckheap, muckhill, dungheap. Derived forms: dunghills. Dune dune buggy dune cycling Dunedin dung dung beetle dungaree Dungeness crab dungeon dungheap dunghill dungy dunite dunk dunk shot Dunkard dunker Dunker Dunkerque Dunkers Dunkirk. Platforms: PlayStation 3, PlayStation 4, PlayStation Vita, Wii U, Xbox One, Microsoft Windows, Mac OS X, Linux. Depending on who you talk to, The Swapper is or is not a Metroidvania, so we'll keep it a little farther away from number one. Where The Swapper really excels, however, is in its puzzles.

Life As A Dung Beetle Mac Os Download

MacX Free DVD to PSP Converter for Mac 4.1.9: 36.3 MB: Freeware: Looking for a solution to convert DVD to PSP for free? MacX Free DVD to PSP Converter for Mac is a 100% free DVD to PSP converter software which can assist you convert any DVD including copy protected DVDs to PSP supported MP4, H.264/MPEG-4 AVC and MP3 files on Mac OS. Empires of the Undergrowth is a real-time ant colony management game. You will excavate your nest underground, constructing tunnels and chambers to store food and raise brood.

Old Threads

Hello all!What about placing a new entry or section on this page about the VW Beetle?Is it a good idea?What do you users and/or administrators feel about this?Regards,LNPerdigão

Something's got to be done about that table.. it might be a browser specific thing, but I see the table going down, down, and down, with the usual links and stuff that belong at the bottom of the page cutting right across near the top of the 'Families' section, and the picture is even further down than the table. I'll try to fix it, but I can't test with other browsers at the moment, so if you're coming here with your IE or whatever, wondering why I mangled the page that way, this would be why. For the record, I'm using Galeon-1.2.10/Mozilla-1.3. -- John Owens 22:18 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

FWIW, in IE the table still looks the same (i.e., it looks correct, no text crossing it) but the picture now occurs after the table rather than on the left of it, which is now blank space. Not as nice, but since I know nothing about how to fix it, I leave it to others<G>. -- Someone else 22:30 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

Arrggh! I was hoping to fix that while I was at it too, because on mine, I saw the picture after the table before, but on the left of the table right under the text the way I had it, and now after Infrogmation's and Tarquin's edits, it's back on the bottom again. There's got to be a right way that works for both, doesn't there? Please? -- John Owens 22:51 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

Infrogmation: when those <br>s aren't in there, Mozilla sends the picture to the bottom so it can wrap further before reaching an edge, apparently. With the <br>s, it wraps at a shorter point (of course) and so the picture can fit in next to the table (I'd like to hear from someone at 800x600 about this, or I suppose I could *gasp* shrink my window). Would you mind terribly leaving those in? They don't break the text flow terribly, since they come after commas anyway. -- John Owens 22:56 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

'Speciose' is a real word used by taxonomists, entomologists, and such, but it's jargony. No objection to the copyedit, just noting this for reference. Vicki Rosenzweig 02:08, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'm contemplating doing some beetle families, and the first thing that strikes me about this is that this would be a good candidate for moving the long family list from taxobox to article inline. Anybody have any objections? Stan 07:01, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I did as you suggested on the layout, Stan, now go to it! Too many red links here at present. The text of the entry could use some expansion too (speaking from a layout point of view, that is, I am not qualified to speak about the actual content). Also, we should find an image with more contrast for the taxobox. In fact I just tried to swap the two images, using a cropped version of the in-text icture for the box, but I find that upload is disabled! Something to do with the server problems, I presume. Tannin 08:33, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thanks! Library had a copy of latest American Beetles, which has good current writeups of the 131 families. Stan 15:02, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Major Revision

This page seemed kinda sad considering the variety and range of the subject so it's getting a spring clean :)

--John-Nash 11:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Done for now..

No doubt the spelling and grammar need checkng by someone with a good eye :)

--John-Nash 16:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some nice additions! A couple things - first, full-width images are almost never a good idea; some viewers, such as PDAs and the Mac OS X dashboard widgets have narrow screens and large images are a problem. Second, you should be fairly restrained about deleting other people's work. If you thought American Beetles was a poor reference for a general article on beetles, better to suggest that on the talk page rather than to summarily evaporate it. (Personally I think it's one of the best English-language books out there.) Stan 23:09, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Stan - it would have been great if you could have included the ISBN, and also the focus of that book is geocentric, both those reasons may have been why I opted to remove, and also had I not removed contributions from others this page would have made no sense, apologies if I offended, most certainly not the intent, just to create a great artcle on a subject I enjoy.With regards to the photos I opt to leave them as they are until someone actually has a problem, I think they add something to the page the size they are *shrugs*. It would be good if you could add a list of books other than just North America, like Beetles of Europe, Asia, etc. . --John-Nash 28 June 2005 11:53 (UTC)

Since American Beetles has its own article (thus the blue link), one can look at it to get ISBNs and such. It's a source for a number of beetle articles here, because it includes good up-to-date general discussion of families, not just US species. I'm not familiar with what the good references might be for other continents, hopefully somebody else can do that. Stan 29 June 2005 05:52 (UTC)

References

We have references listed at the end of the article, but nothing throughout the text that could point the reader to the sources of information. I think this would be a valuable contribution to the article, especially for anyone wanting more information on specific items. I am willing to work on this, but I'd appreciate some feedback as to the style that should be used for in-text citations. I am familiar with scientific writing and have a preference for the citation style used therein (see Wikipedia: Harvard referencing), which is one of the styles Wikipedia suggests using. I would argue that since this article deals with scientific and entomological content, such a citation style would be most appropriate. I'm just going to start adding references (this may not happen right away, but I'll start) and hopefully discussion here will direct the style of the citations. Thanks all, Jhml 20:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Appreciation

The picture at the part 'beetle collecting' is great!

Miscellaneous comments

Good work by User:John-Nash. I went through and copyedited the new material, and I have some comments.

1. The article said:

Beetles entered the fossil record during the Permian, and by the Pleistocene they were numerous enough to be important sources of data on Pleistocene environments.

This appears to imply that it took 260 million years for beetles to become numerous, which is rather misleading, so I cut the latter half of the sentence. The article needs a section on the evolutionary history of beetles.

2. The 'Parental care' section refers to leaf rollers. The phrase 'leaf roller' is ambiguous, referring to moths of the genus Tortrix as well as several kinds of beetle, e.g. genera Apoderus, Byctiscus. So what is being referred to here?

Gdr 2005-06-28 18:12:37 (UTC)

nice update, the picture of the beetle collection kinda looses it's impact when shrunk, but whatever.--John-Nash 28 June 2005 18:21 (UTC)

I understand, but at least now it's not cut off at the right on small screens! Gdr 2005-06-28 18:59:25 (UTC)

• grins* - maybe it'll have to be next weeks wallpaper instead :D --John-Nash 28 June 2005 19:19 (UTC)

jake harvey:

I think you should not! make the new entry or section on the vw beeltebecause I am sick of try to reserch on beetles the insect and it is coming up with the vw beetles car!!!You should do more info on the insect beeltes.

Alan Kleiman:Inconsistency: The reference to 'carrion beetles' says they're necrophagous, but the entry for carrion beetles says they're carnivorous. I have no idea which of the two is correct.

Also, the entry for scarab beetles already has an entry for 'scarab beetles in ancient egypt', including the same picture of a beetle. The one on this entry seems more complete, but wouldn't it be better to merge it with the scarab beetle entry?

Mystery Beetle

Can anyone tell me what species this beetle is?

It was fairly large, at least an inch long and almost an inch wide. I found it crawling around outside and of course had to take a picture of it.PiccoloNamek 07:54, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

it's Pelidnota punctata (Grapevine Beetle) --Goliathus 00:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

This is fantastic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is owned by UCC.(just kidding)This article is fantastic!!!!!!!!!!!!!(I editted it though.)

Can you identify this beetle?

There are some really nice guys in a graphics forum, who doesn't know, which kind of Beetle one of the users found. Perhaps, anyone here is able to identify this beetle? --Remi de 22:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

A post being added

There is a line being continually added (to the first paragraph) by another editor regarding a deities work. I would ask that religious thoughts not be included in this scientific discussion and be removed. I do not share the same point of view and find it distracting (at least) to have to read about it on this page.Jtflood1976 22:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Jtflood1976

As I mention in my comment on your talk page, I find your opposition to a useful and illuminating comment.. revealing. You might want to consider whether your motives are more about your biases than about the article. Moreover, putting personal comments in a hidden area seems more than strident? Shenme 22:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not hidden, it's transcluded in the assessment template at the top of the page.

I agree the quotation is well worth including (easily the most famous thing ever said about beetles), though perhaps not in the lead. 22:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Per your comments 'your enthusiastic opposition, without discussion other than snideness, is perhaps more revealing than you'd like'. If you will notice that I did indeed add my thoughts in the discussion page. And just because something has 'been there for awhile' does not mean that it is correct or relevant. Perhaps You would reconsider if I added my own line in that mentioned Naturalist David Attenborough advising that beetles are proof that a god cannot be? My point is that I should not have to read about the religious thoughts of a certain scientist who studied beetles. Jtflood1976 22:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Jtflood1976

Again, this is not just some random quotation; it is a very famous quotation about beetles, and possibly one of the best-known quotations from a biologist. It's also a vivid and memorable illustration of the relative abundance of beetles. You seem to be perceiving it as an attempt to push religion, but that's not the case at all -- Haldane was humorously dismissing the idea that the natural world could be used to validate Christian views. In any case, the fact that you personally don't like it is not a reason to remove it. Wikipedia is not censored. 23:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the tagline up in the corner, you'll see it says 'the free encyclopedia', not 'the free encyclopedia of science-only'. Culture and religion are just as important as scientific fact, and we treat them all equally in every article. Note for instance that dung beetle has a whole section(!) on its significance in Egyptian religion. I would have no problem adding the Attenborough quote too, although it's not really in the same league as Haldane's, seems more appropriate further down. I think most readers figure out that Haldane is actually getting in a very sly dig at religion, but since there is at least one person who didn't get the joke, perhaps our wording could be tweaked to clarify. I have no idea how, seems a bit like mustache on Mona Lisa. :-) Stan 01:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, adding to the /Comments is kind of a mistake, that's supposed to be for rating justifications and the like, not content discussion. I'd suggest deleting the subpage, since we're having the discussion proper right here - I'll do it if all are agreeable. Stan 01:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do. As you mentioned, the description is 'The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters:' which was not true in this case. And the comment should have been signed, which didn't happen. Deleting it is appropriate. Shenme 01:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with the quote; I was already familiar with it and think it's pretty funny. However, I don't think it should be in the lead paragraph. The lead paragraph serves just to introduce the subject, why it is notable, and what are the major points developped in the body of the article. This quote serves none of these purposes, and is rather useless for introducing readers to the subject of beetles. If you read Wikipedia:The perfect article, it says '[the perfect article] starts with a clear description of the subject; the lead introduces and explains the subject and its significance clearly and accurately, without going into excessive detail'. It seems to me that a quote about beetles, any quote, falls into the category 'excessive detail'. Why not have a 'quotes' section further down, or add it to the section evolutionary history and classification? That seems like a good compromise. IronChris (talk) 02:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel compelled to have it in the lede, although I think actually thought about the issue once before and didn't see any spots that seemed better. Since it applies specifically to the numbers of beetle species, it's out of place anywhere that doesn't talk numbers. Stan 04:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:LEAD calls for everything mentioned in the lead to also be in the main body of the article. If numbers and distribution were discussed somewhere further down, that would provide a place for the quotation to be. 07:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to it being included later under a title: 'Thoughts on Beetles/Famous Quotes on Beetles' Or something to that effect. Jtflood1976 20:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Jtflood1976

A later section title, as just suggested, seems unnecessary: I would imagine there are few quotes of such fame as Haldane's that would merit being included in an article such as this. On the other hand, the evolutionary history and classification section has some numbers in it already and could easily accommodate a few more that emphasize the magnitude of this order. The Haldane quote, if it needs to be included in the article (and I think it does quite nicely - and in a good natured manner - underscore the huge number of species), could be incorporated into this section. Considering the level of debate, perhaps the original context in which the quote was made should be investigated by someone.

At any rate, I don't think that including the quote means that the article is pushing any particular religious agenda. I was introduced to the quote at a public university, and at no point was it understood by anyone that the intent of that introduction was anything beyond a good chuckle. Jhml 21:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me if there is a certain type of beetle that leaves its shell behind? Ive seen small brown ones.

25% of all known life-forms?

The article's lead presently states that 'Coleoptera [the order containing beetles] contains more described species than in any other order in the animal kingdom, constituting about 25% of all known life-forms.' I don't have the Encyclopedia of Insects that is cited in support of that claim to check, but shouldn't it be that they constitute 25% of all known animal species, which is what seems to be implied? 'Life forms' would--to me, at least--imply plants, molds, bacteria, etc; it seems extremely unlikely to me that 25% of all species of life are beetles. Can someone more knowledgeable than I am on the subject kindly clarify this for me (and, perhaps, Wikipedia's readers)? Jacob1207 (talk) 16:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It's 'all known life forms'. Insects comprise about 70% of all known life forms, and beetles are about 40% of all known insects. Depending on whose numbers you use, that puts beetles somewhere between 20-30% of the total of all known species. Plants, molds, bacteria, etc. are only a tiny fraction of the known life forms. The difference between numbers of 'known' and 'unknown' can be quite a disparity, too, as in bacteria, for which fewer than 6,000 species are known; you can find quotes like this from bacteriologists - 'Attempts to quantify bacterial diversity have ranged from 10,000,000 to 1,000,000,000 total species, but even these diverse estimates may be out by many orders of magnitude' - but they use a COMPLETELY different criterion for what constitutes a 'species' (if the same criterion was applied to insects, then the number of insects species would still be as great or greater). If they're right, that also means that fewer than .000001% of the world's bacteria are known. The bottom line? Yes, the 25% figure is a reasonable one. Dyanega (talk) 16:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Another definition for 'Beetling'

I typed 'Beetling' looking for info on specialized finishing process relating to Linen production.

Literally, it was the process of beating flax, to make it into linen. But I was directed here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.27.9.20 (talk) 22:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Number of estimated beetle species

Dear all,I have been trying to find the source for the estimated number of beetle species which is given in the beetle-article: 'estimates put the total number of possible species at between 5 and 8 million.'From the Version-History I found that this contribution to the article was made on June 25th 2005 at 13:13 by John-Nash ([1])but no reference was given. John-Nash, if you read this, could you maybe post here or give reference in the article to where this number comes from ?I am very interested in this number and would really like find a reference for this.Thank you very much, --IguanaArmadillo (talk) 23:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

black carpet beetle

Life As A Dung Beetle Mac Os X

we have these bug called black carpet beetles.

what am i going to do?

do you know how to get rid of these bugs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.202.95 (talk) 04:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I found this weird bug but I don't have a picture of it and I don't know the name of it but I can give you the discription. ' It is a beetle that is about and inch long and its anteanas are an inch long also, it is brownish yellow and has four white spots on its back' Can you tell me what it is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.114.50 (talk) 19:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we have enough time now with Mac OS X Public Beta to reach a painful conclusion: The transition will not work, at least not well enough to sustain the Apple we know.

I believe that’s true, even without considering the specific problems of the Public Beta (although there are certainly enough of them).

What’s worse, Apple is willfully walking down this path to self-destruction, ignoring both the lessons of its biggest competitor and its own experience in the early 90s.

Although the Mac press portrays Apple’s decision to release OS X Public Beta as a breakthrough (and it is, for Apple), Microsoft did the same thing with Windows 95 in 1994 and early 1995.

Microsoft Did It Right

As I recall (and I was mostly a Windows/PC user at the time), the Win 95 beta period established two things: You could run Windows 95 reasonably well on midlevel hardware, and you didn’t need to do anything special to run your existing applications. Factories of steel mac os.

First point: In 1995, the general state of the art in mass market PCs was a Pentium 90. A whole lot of power users were on 66 MHz 486s, and even more folks had 486-25s.

They could all run Windows 95. Think about it: Mac users take pride in the long useful lives of Macs. We appreciate what a 6100 will still do, six years after it was released. And we know that a PC from that era is mostly dead weight.

But back then, Microsoft accomplished something really smart: The company made Win 95 run on what most people owned. With one stroke, Microsoft kept millions of folks in the game. And when they could, those millions of folks went on to buy newer machines (and newer versions of Windows).

Well, make that two strokes, because the other thing Microsoft did right was make Windows 95 seamlessly compatible with earlier Windows applications.

You could run Win 3.x versions of software, and the experience was pretty much the same as it had been under the Windows 3.x. In fact, it was a little better: The 3.x apps gained some of Win 95’s interface features.

True, there were lots of warnings about how the legacy apps could still crash the system, and how they couldn’t take advantage of Win 95’s faux “preemptive multitasking.” But they worked, and being able to use what you already had just made the eventual upgrade easier. Mystic destinies: soa - hikaru: book i mac os.

Most important: You didn’t have to launch a special “environment” to run the 3.x apps. It was all Win 95.

IBM Did It Wrong

The closest parallel I have to OS X’s classic environment is the Win 3.x environment used by OS/2, IBM’s operating system of the early 90s.

It was nuts: You could use all your old primitive Windows apps while waiting for advanced OS/2 applications to come to market.

You know what happened. What you may not remember is how awkward it was to have two profoundly different operating environments on the same computer. Ultimately, it didn’t work because it was odd and too much trouble. (Like OS X, launching the 3.x environment was like starting a second computer. And like OS X, IBM put a lot of effort into making that launch faster.)

Now remember what Apple did when it made the switch to PowerPC. Through the heroic efforts of many programmers, Mac users were able to move the vast majority of their 68k applications over to Power Macs without a hitch.

There was no “classic environment” to be launched; it was all Macintosh.

You can fairly argue that I’m comparing (no pun intended) apples to oranges, because Win 95 had its roots in the earlier DOS/Windows world, while OS X is completely different from all earlier versions of the Mac OS. Xbox controller receiver mac.

I agree. But think about it this way: How far would Microsoft have gotten in 1995 if it had introduced Windows NT 4 as its mainstream operating system and forced users to run a special 3.x environment in NT?

A couple of other points trouble me: In much of the writing about OS X, its “stability” is often the main line of defense, as in, “Sure, it’s a lot different. Sure, what you’ve really got here is a gloss on Unix. But boy is it crash-proof.”

I have never, ever heard of a Mac user switching platforms because Macs crash. In fact, I have never, ever heard of an ordinary person buying a computer based on the stability of the OS.

Obviously, stability is a very big deal for servers. But it just doesn’t make that much difference at the desktop level. Most businesses I know continue to run Win 95 on the majority of their office machines, and no one has ever accused the Windows 9x family of being overly stable.

It is beyond me why Apple could not have extended the 9.x OS, adding in more preemptive multitasking and other “modern” features. Much of the Mac press takes it as an article of faith that the existing OS could not sustain much more, but I have never seen this claim backed up.

What I suspect is more the case here is that Steve Jobs felt he needed to make a clean break with the Apple he inherited. He has done so brilliantly on the style front. There was never any serious thought given to continuing the existing OS.

Usually, people cite the failures of Copland and Rhapsody as examples of why OS X was inevitable. I point out that Apple is notorious for failing at big software projects, but it has often succeeded through the efforts of small groups of programmers. I’m guessing it could happen again with “OS 9.5.”

The only thing Apple loses by not having a rock-steady OS is the server market. Why not pursue the Microsoft strategy and use OS X primarily as a server OS while migrating its features over to the mainstream OS? [Publisher’s note: Apple had released Mac OS X Server in March 1999 8 months before the September 2000 release of the Public Beta.]

Ultimately, I see little or no compelling reason why most people will want OS X, other than they may have to use it if they want to continue to run Macs.

But not all people will have that choice: OS X automatically disenfranchises everyone with a pre-G3 Mac.

Keywords: #macosx #classicmode

Short link: http://goo.gl/wFsxwZ

searchword: osxdoomsapple

Is this necessary? Well, OS X is Unix under the hood, and I can run Unix on my 6100, my 6400, and my StarMax 4000 in 32 MB of memory. I assume Aqua and Quartz and all add to both processor and memory requirements, but again I’m not inclined to give Apple the benefit of the doubt.

I think Jobs wants to enforce the clean break. That’s fine if you think Apple wasn’t much between 1985 and 1997, but you are leaving out millions of loyal customers.

By contrast, I have a catalog on my desk from another company that prides itself on style: Volkswagen. Same kind of customer, loyal to a fault, forgiving, fanatic.

All the way through this catalog, you see pictures of older VWs side-by-side with New Beetles and ad copy that generally suggests a “big tent” in which all VW owners are part of the family. Just once, I’d like to see a picture of a 7600 on Apple’s web site, side by side with a G4.

Of course, you have to value continuity to think like that. You have to believe the past is worth respecting and building on, that what you already have is worth extending, that you get further by increments than by revolutions.

Apple is throwing away an interface that has been battle-tested, refined by the experience of a couple of generations of users, and worn smooth in the rough spots.

Whatever you may think of the stability of the OS itself, the interface is the hardiest on the market. Apple should not sacrifice this in the name of elegance!

I think Apple should prepare to move OS X to the server market, announce a plan to gradually incorporate underlying OS X elements into the mainstream OS, and start looking at the genuinely new interface conventions likely to arise from groups like Eazel or, most particularly, Apple’s own Jef Raskin.

(Top priority: blend the new capabilities of Quartz into the existing interface. I would love to see the translucent and shadow effects at play in OS 9.)

Steve Jobs has done a wonderful job of re-imagining the look of Apple’s hardware. He has also succeeded in throwing out parts of the Mac’s hardware without destroying the company.

But remember, Jobs decision to move from SCSI to industry-standard ATA drives didn’t force the owners of older Macs to give up what they already had. (Yes, I know some older Macs already used ATA drives. I’m talking about the company as a whole.)

It’s the same deal with USB vs. ADB, and the addition of FireWire. In fact, in all cases it’s possible to upgrade any Mac built in the last five years to the current hardware standard.

And it’s the same stuff PCs use, which helps. A lot.

That is not where we are going with OS X. We are headed to a place, I fear, where the beauty of the OS blinds the faithful, where the Mac is cut adrift from its remaining ties to the rest of the computer world, and where the verdict of both believers and nonbelievers alike will ultimately be: dazzling, but why bother?