Sayonara

Dude, location is shown at the bottom of every post we make. (Or, apparently, at the top right if you use the vBulletin default stylesheet.)

Not that you are dumb, but that 66 B of the B 39 B of the OT 27 B in the NT was a recognisable pattern to me. I would hardly consider myself religious and I sure as hell haven't memorised World's Greatest Bible Facts. If you were observant you would have noticed "Location: UK" at the bottom of each of my posts. Oooooh SNAP!

Falsified because an American already got it I have finished all 33. Where is my cookie?

I am not a Christian either, but I recognised the patterns and associated them with stored knowledge. That's all this quiz is testing! Are there nine pirates in South Africa? I was assuming you would approach from the same angle as me and assume that the P stood for pounds. It doesn't, but that's your clue

Oi! Don't tempt me satan. I think this is more a test of the ability to pick out bits of knowledge in an associative manner. Of course, having the knowledge in the first place helps!

I doubt it. I just got this one. It IS to do with parts. Just number 31 left!

I am sure that 10 is "5 tuxedos on a fish", and 31 is "9 parrots in sexual assault", but they aren't turning green. Yeah. My excuse is that a large essay was beating me around the skull for most of the day.

Yes, you are there... just that the term is wrong. I am down with the globaliness. Knew I'd kick myself.

I still need 10 and 30 as well. 28 is probably similar to what you think it is, and 31 is culturally biased to the UK and India, hint hint hint. So culturally biased then.... Dude, I am on 30/33. That is not being pwn3d!

Is it culturally biased?

I am up to 28. 7 W of the W is killing me, and you just know I will kick myself when I get it

Shut your cake hole, this is our chance to be GENIUSES.

I am on 18 correct and still going. Which ones could you not get? [EDIT] now 22, hurrah! Still going!

W3C and WAA guidelines consistently state that new-windowness should be a user choice, not an author choice.

Trade regulations curtail freedom of speech in numerous other areas where the same concerns apply. Why should a special case be made for purveyors of the supernatural? (I realise from the rest of your post that you get it, I am amplifying the point.)

This is something that I too have heard about but never really looked into in any great depth (boom boom). I had a quick look on google, and this came up: http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arc97/3_29_97/bob1.htm It's not exactly academically brilliant but it was certainly interesting.

If we offer them banner space for promoting this contest, and encourage other science sites to do so, it may help them to recognise that this avenue is actually applauded by the people who are usually telling them to STFU.

The Drake equation is intended to allow the uncertainty factors to be quantified in the question of how many civilizations we might expect to detect by virtue of intelligent communication phases (that's in OUR GALAXY ajb, not the universe). If changing the variables due to new information won't affect the outcome, what's the point of using it? Look at what variable go into the equation: R* is the average rate of star formation in our galaxy fp is the fraction of those stars that have planets ne is the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets fℓ is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point fi is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life fc is the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space L is the length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space. Estimates we plug into the equation for the variables I italicised might well be revised if we find evidence of Martian life, past or present. These revisions would clearly have an effect on the answer that pops out the other end. Personally I think that Drake's original working values were a bit silly. fi was orders too high and fc was far too low.

Spin gravity? Dinosaurs? It's like having Adam and Zarkov back. Hurrahs!

Vexer, if you are intent on not using the quote function, and only quote a snippet from all the posts that have been made since you last replied, you really need to indicate who you are talking to. In simple terms, the mitochondria divide according to the energy needs of the parent cell, rather than in response to the parent cell's cell cycle. When the parent cell divides, each cell copy receives an (essentially random) number of mitochondrial copies. So in the case of human reproduction, you have the male gamete (sperm) which under normal circumstances have no mitochondrial DNA in them, and the female gamete (the egg) which contains mitochondria originating from the female parent's cells at the time that the egg was produced by her. Once fertilised, the egg becomes the zygote and begins to divide. Mitochondria divide during this process as they would in any other cell system. The main idea to take away is that mitochondrial genes are not inherited by the same means as the cell's nuclear genes. You can think of mDNA as a kind of genetic passenger, but this is really only applicable to cell division within an organism as opposed to gamete fusion during reproduction. IOW, mDNA is not 'passed and recombined' during fertilisation as is the parental DNA - it passes directly from mother to child by means of cellular division.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7356875.stm This indicates that desperation is now a factor in Sadr's stratagem.

Sounds good to me. If that were to extend as far as oooh, say, covering the "act of god" clause that insurance companies use to side-step claims, I would laugh my little bum cheeks off.

How about if we all pitch in (and I am sure other science web sites will contribute) to build 20 ft tall, 6 ft thick concrete walls around all the creation museums? It would be a much better use of our money.

I suggest that people should only reply to this thread if they have a genuine burning desire to directly answer specific questions from the OP. We really don't need any more hissy fit threads with so many keywords in them.

Yes, yes I would. In exactly the same gentle and jocular fashion. Nobody said it is. Get a grip Gcol. Jonas, I am going to assume that you have an about average sense of humour. But if you indeed have a void where it should be and my gentle ribbing made you cry, sorry. Have a tissue []