New Zealand scientists thaw 1,000-pound squid corpse

April 29, 2008 By RAY LILLEY, Associated Press Writer

(AP) -- Marine scientists in New Zealand on Tuesday were thawing the corpse of the largest squid ever caught to try to unlock the secrets of one of the ocean's most mysterious beasts.

Similar stories from PHYSorg:

Security chip that does encryption in PCs hacked

23 hours ago | 4.6 / 5 (16) | 13

By tracking water molecules, physicists hope to unlock secrets of life

Feb 08, 2010 | 4.6 / 5 (8) | 3

Scientists Drill Deepest Hole off New Zealand

Feb 04, 2010 | 3.8 / 5 (4) | 0

NASA Extends Cassini's Tour of Saturn

Feb 03, 2010 | 4.8 / 5 (10) | 3

Google complaint highlights China-based hacking

Feb 03, 2010 | 3.7 / 5 (3) | 1

• drknowledge - Apr 29, 2008
  • Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
  PhysOrg, it please do not include articles that have no new scientific information, but are just updates on scientific projects. There's nothing particularly to learn in these articles, and they get in the way of articles with new information. Thanks.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• fredrick - Apr 29, 2008
  • Rank: 2 / 5 (3)
  yes PhysOrg, because there just isn't enough space on the internet here for (what I think to be) superfluous articles - you know, they *get in the way* of the other articles; and I can't seem to stop myself from reading articles that I don't want to read. Help me, please PhysOrg.
  
  BTW, I like that it has gotten 4.3/5 so far.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Commentateur - Apr 29, 2008
  • Rank: 3 / 5 (4)
  The Octopus vs. Shark Google Ad definitely raised its value for me....
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• drknowledge - Apr 30, 2008
  • Rank: 2 / 5 (2)
  fredrick, the issue is that I wasted my time reading an article whose contents I already knew. Such articles are fluff, created either by the projects to get more attention for themselves, or by news agencies to pad their content. The original article doubtless would have gotten 4.3/5 too, if people had been able to find it. Publishing what is effectively the same article more than once is a form of spam.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• fredrick - Apr 30, 2008
  • Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
  "fredrick, the issue is that I wasted my time reading an article whose contents I already knew."
  
  -- I feel for your loss. I really do.
  
  PhysOrg, if you do it again I'll seek reimbursments on drknowledge's behalf; and I'll have you banned from the internet for spamming.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5