kenel

A little humor to brighten up your day....I don't think anyone's really that dumb, so don't assume.

I was reading in my Popular Mechanics magazine that the US Navy has recently developed a new "class" of submarines, replacing the decade old dinosaurs. From what little they explained, it appeared as though they were equipping it with MHD Propulsion, making it virtually "Silent". It also had a helipad on top...which I found a little humorous (How's a Helicopter going to land on it underwater?). (RDRR)

I was thinking more along the lines of Al Gore.

I noticed this morning when I was shaving, and inevitable cut myself, that it took an extreemly long period of time to clot. Is it harder to stop external blood flow from your facial region? Why is this?

Who would you consider the modern day equivalent to Albert Einstein?

Bill Gates took sole credit for a project he developed with a group of people. Granted he may have given them very suitable jobs and/or patent money, but he still is the only one associated with the name "Microsoft". Capitalist America.

I'd have to say that I am Catholic, and I honestly have no problems with cloning. I'd also have to say that I am not a practicing Catholic, and dislike the riches and corruptiveness found in the Chuch. Pro-Cloning, I am.

As was I, I gave up after I had located those though...being a lazy nerd doesn't help my research. Sorry about the dissappointment. If I do happen to come accross a more technical article, I'll be sure to post it immediatly.

Here are some interesting excerpts from Space.com explaining how we might be the least intelligent species in our galaxy: " SETI folk are mostly interested in alien intelligence, not the brainpower of the local school kids. But investigating terrestrial IQs may help us estimate how often sentient beings evolve elsewhere. To test human intelligence is straightforward, if controversial. But how can we assess the brainpower of other critters? One approach taken by biologists is to compute an "encephalization quotient," which is really no more than a measure of how weighty the brain is for an animal of a given body size. Of course, bigger bodies usually mean bigger brains (compare – at least in your mind, if not the kitchen – the brain of a rhino to that of a mouse). But sheer size isn’t the whole story. Animals of any given mass have a variety of brain weights. Those with the heftier cerebrums are observed to have more sophisticated behavior, and are ranked as smarter. Humans, it will not surprise you to learn, have the largest brains for their body mass, roughly twice that of their nearest intellectual competitors, the chimps. That factor-of-two difference determines who runs the planet. "In other words, when it comes to the type of intelligence that counts – at least for interstellar signaling – we’re new kids on the galactic block. "What about the other kids? How technically advanced will the aliens be? Keep in mind that the Galaxy has been around for many billions of years longer than the Earth. If extraterrestrials are plentiful, then we can expect them to be in all stages of development. But of course we won’t pick up signals from any that are less advanced than we are. Aliens that SETI can find will be at least as scientifically competent as folks here on Earth. "Frank Drake has estimated the average lifetime of technologically adept civilizations at 10 thousand years. This is not overly optimistic. After all, Homo sapiens has been around for 300,000 years, so another 10 thousand isn’t much. Indeed, it’s a bit of a downer to think that once technology gains a foothold we are near the end of our ride. "Technological progress on Earth, at least recently, has been very fast. Indeed, the growth in computer power – one measure of our prowess – has been exponential. If this is a general phenomenon for intelligent societies, then we are incredibly primitive in comparison to more than 99% of the civilizations we could detect." ------------------------ This idea is nothing new; it has been long thought that if an alien species were to be discovered, it would be too advanced to communicate. It also could be totally wrong, and we could be the "intelligent life" that we're so desperate to find. Either way, it's an interesting way of looking at Earth, and the possibility of extraterrestrial lifeforms.

Agreed. Our Country is 60%+ Catholic; I'd assume that number reflects government employement also.

How effectively does Spermicide reduce the number of active sperm in a semen sample? And if possible, what percentage is neutralized? (More specifically...what is the sperm reduction rate of spermicide used in Trojan Brand condoms?)

It appears that new technology isn't always as useful as it appears. A similar discovery was made using a "prehistoric" transistor to produce "better than excellent" sound from a stereo system. Change is bad.

BioMedCentral has an article on the decision made by the Presidentially Appointed Council on Biomethics. Click here for the Biomedical Ethics forum.

Excerpts taken from thes.co.uk (requires paid subscription) " Why someone falls in love with one person rather than another from the thousands of potential partners they encounter remains a mystery of profound proportions. Chance, chemistry and the odds that two small windows of receptivity will open simultaneously at the precise moment of meeting guarantee unpredictability. Nevertheless, science has made modest inroads into understanding the ins and outs of love. " ............. " My study of the mate preferences of 10,047 individuals from 37 different cultures located on six continents and five islands also revealed the importance and universality of love. I found that "love and mutual attraction" was rated as the most indispensable of 18 possible attributes in a potential marriage partner - by both sexes, in all cultures. Through the vagaries of cultural prescriptions and political regimes, diversity of mating systems, disparities of economic conditions and multiplicity of religious exhortations, humans everywhere apparently long for love." ............ " What was surprising to social scientists was the discovery of universal sex differences. Men worldwide place more importance on youth and physical attractiveness, qualities now known to be important signals of a woman's fertility and future reproductive potential. Women across the globe want men who are ambitious, enjoy decent social status, possess resources or the potential to acquire them, and who were born a few years before they were. " .......... " But is love a cold-blooded appraisal of a person's spec sheet or an emotion that blinds us to deficits? It is a bit of both. While people rarely fall in love with those who lack the qualities that they desire, love may have evolved to blind us to a partner's deficiencies. Few people possess the full complement of desired qualities and most of us have to settle for less than we would want in an ideal world. Usually, only those high in desirability can attract others comparably high. Perhaps the most scientifically documented law of love is assortative mating, the pervasive coupling of people who are similar to each other. Intelligent, educated people marry those who share their insights and erudition. The glamourous pair off with the glamourous. Although opposites occasionally attract, when it comes to long-term love the "eight out of tens" typically marry other eights, while the "six out of tens" go with the other "sixes". " ............ " It would not pay to harp on about deficiencies while falling in love. In fact, a recent study reported that most people show "love's illusion" of being overly optimistic about their chances of marital success. Whereas about 50 per cent of marriages will end in divorce, only 11 per cent of married people thought that their own marriage would end in divorce. Among a younger group of unmarried individuals, only 12 per cent thought that their future marriage would have a 50 per cent chance of splitting. These findings may reflect adaptive biases that, although clearly off target, do function to increase the odds of success. According to this explanation, love is an emotion that motivates people to persevere through thick and thin, even if it does not always work out in the end. In short, love can blind us in two ways - first, by making us happy to settle for someone who is less than our imagined ideal, and second, by being optimistic about the future of the romance, thereby enhancing its chances. " .......... " Evolutionary economist Robert Frank argues that love is a solution to the problem of commitment. If a partner chooses you for rational reasons, he or she might leave you for the same rational reasons, finding someone slightly more desirable on all of the "rational" criteria. This creates a commitment problem: how can you be sure that a person will stick with you? If your partner is blinded by an uncontrollable love that cannot be helped and cannot be chosen, a love for only you and no other, then commitment will not waver. It is likely that the causal arrow also runs in reverse. Love may be the psychological reward we experience when the problem of commitment is successfully being solved. It is a mind-body opium that signals that the adaptive problems of mate selection, sexual congress, devotion and loyalty have met with triumph. The scientific explanation is that evolution has installed in the human brain reward mechanisms that keep us performing activities that lead to successful reproduction. The down side is that the drug wears off. Some get on a hedonic treadmill, chasing the high that accompanies love. Repeating successful mating with fresh partners brings back the buzz, but perhaps never to its former level. Love may be a solution to the commitment problem or an intoxicating reward for successfully solving it, or both. But there is no question that love is an emotion intimately linked with commitment. In my studies of 115 different actions that signal whether a person is truly in love, acts of commitment topped the list, such as talking about marriage or expressing a desire to raise a family. The most salient acts of love signal the commitment of sexual, economic, emotional and genetic resources to one person. " ...... " Then we must consider the harsh metric of the mating market. Consider an entry-level professional couple. If the woman's career skyrockets and the man gets fired, it puts a strain on both because their market values now differ. To the woman, a "nine" who was previously out of reach now becomes available. In the evolutionary jungle of mating, we may admire a woman who stands by her loser husband. But those who do are not like our ancestors. Modern humans descended from those who traded up when the increment was sufficient to outweigh the manifold costs people experience as a consequence of breaking up. Falling out of love has many dark sides. The crash can be physically dangerous for women and psychologically traumatic for both sexes. Men who get rejected by the woman with whom they are in love often abuse them emotionally and sometimes physically. In our recent studies, we found that an alarming number of men who are unceremoniously dumped begin to have homicidal fantasies. Just as evolution has installed reward mechanisms that flood us with pleasure when we successfully mate, it may have also equipped us with mechanisms that deliver psychological pain when we experience mating failure. " Comments anyone?

Is anyone willing to explain who inveted the parsec unit, and why it is used? 3.26163388338 Light Years...why not use light years? I understand it is a valuable unit of measurement for long distances, but I would like to know more about who invented it, and why it was invented.

Sorry, I had added that later. Here is some more Documentation on this Study: http://www.lucidity.com/NL63.RU.Naps.html http://www.efuse.com/nap/ If that appears insufficient, I will glady locate more.

Is it just me, or does Zarkov appear to be jealous?

It has been recently proven that taking ten minute "naps" can greatly replenish your body, making it easier to study, concentrate, and function leaving you refreshed without the "groggy" feeling usually experienced after long rest periods. A report can be found here: http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/health/story/0,3324,130926,00.html

No mummies have been found in pyramids? Proof that they have been: http://www.guardians.net/hawass/release03-2001.htm http://www.egyptrevealed.com/022201-mysteriesofsaqqara.htm Another possible reason as to why mummies are usually not found in pyramids: Ancient grave robbers specialized in the navigating of, and plundering of Pyramids. In most cases, they also stole the mummified remains of the queen or king inhabitant.

I'm always up for a conspiracy theory. If you're able to present evidence, scientific, I'd be happy to consider this. Until then...Happy Hunting.

You left out his eating habbits.

Should we be concentrating more on possible Middle Eastern Terrorism, or Astronomical Terrorism?

MSNBC reports: STORY: EDISON HISTORIAN Jack Stanley, who is leading the dig, said a crevice lined with craggy red bricks is believed to lead into the basement of the now-destroyed 1882 building that housed Edison’s library and stood next to the famed laboratory. The team plans to unearth the site Saturday. A team of diggers from nearby Monmouth College working at the 34-acre laboratory complex site found a hole they thought was only a sinkhole until they identified it as the building site from photographs and a survey done by Henry Ford in 1928. ..... The dig is part of a project to underline Edison’s historical importance. Plans call for building a new museum and replica of the famous lab, said Edison Mayor George Spadoro. ..... Edison held 1,300 U.S. and foreign patents in his lifetime, including the transmitter and receiver for the automatic telegraph, the kinetoscope or “peep show” machine and an improved stock ticker system. The inventor died in 1931. I believe the key to further development is inspiration from the past. Maybe "new" Edison inventions will even be discovered.

Very simple answer to a very complex question; If the eye was eliminated during evolution....we wouldn't be able to see, DUH! That's why it remains. DUH!

Blike, you're the devil.