AzurePhoenix

Anthropology deals with any of a number of branches, including homimin evolution, human biology, archaeology, and ethnology. It normally falls on hard scientifical evidence that can be observed and tested. Plus it's a friggin' Helluva lot cooler Probably more easily earned money to be made in sociology though

Personally, I really like this one Xyph. It's really thorough, but not nearly so confusing as code-designations, which I also feel detracts from the "personalities" of planets.

I'm sticking with the Flying Alien City theory . Either that or a simple mediterranean port that got thoroughly volcanized, but left enough survivors to spin a wildly embellished tale of glory and disaster.

the term "Just a theory" is part of the problem (in regards to science-misconcpetions). A theory isn't just a smart guess, it has to be supported by lots of testing. Theories are strong, scientific platforms.

At the very least, the lenses in your eyes would not be given nearly enough time to focus. Falcons for instance have more flexible lenses and more complex ciliary muscles, which is why they can focus clearly on fast moving prey from a distance.

Yippee. My life is now complete.

Don't feel bad Edison, I thought it was real too, never heard of Onion before I saw it. Now I'm a big fan. Here are some examples http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28331 http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28315 http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28626

I am using the administrative account... the error says... "The Windows Installer Service could not be accessed. This can occur if you are running Wndows in Safe Mode, or if the Windows INstaller is not correctly installed."

For some reason my Installer Service for Windows XP home (I know, no surprises there, typical Microcrap ) is encountering an error and won't let me install or de-install programs. My comp's not in safe mode. Is there anything I can do to fix it? Is there a file with settings? Or do I need to download something, in which case, where do I go to get what? I'm actually quite desparate.

We pretty adamantly call it "brain-freeze"

Just started a college biology major for zoology, but for years I've known what I want to do, which is to do behavioral research in exotic wildlife, probably for zoo / park applications. Why? Because it's been programmed into my deepest levels of consciousness by extraterrestrial conspiracists, and if I ever try anything else, my brain cells will violently fuse and explode in a thermonuclear blast.

Sorry, lapse, I don't know the figure for planets, but if you also have to figure that many stars will have multiple planets (our own debatedly has around 8, and many extrasolar systems also have mutliple worlds, and those are just the big visible giants), so the figure might not drop quite so drastically. Oh, while you were responding, I updated the original figures to fix faulty math. This again is faulty, because though we have ideas of what is necessary for life, these ideas are based on our world. Until we can examine life on other worlds, or examine many, many more dead ones, we won't be able to accurately make a valid, usable figure, which was my actual point.

Unless the odds say absolutely that it can't ever happen, there are still more than enough worlds in the universe to compensate. But really, we can't know the odds unless we actually figure out how life forms in the first place, which we hav eyet to do. If we find that out, then maybe we can state the odds, but until that point, one person's guess of a 1/1,000 chance has just as much validity as another's chance of 1/10,000,000,000. **And, with an estimated seven sextillion (70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) stars in the known universe, even if their was only one chance in a trillion, that would leave opportunity for life to spring up 70,000,000,000 times.

Do female worshippers get to wear wench regalia? And if the Jihad does come, will it hav eto be fought with cannons and sabers?

If I'm still alive if this whole "Faith of the Holy Pasta" thing ever falls through, I'm going to automatically sign up for Yodaoist Theology. I really only chose Pastafarianism because someone told me they had better dental benefits.

Fellow FSM-loyal Pastafarians, the evil and heretical slaves of this abominable cult have declared a holy war against us...

I probably know less about physics than a bar of soap' date=' but here's how it was explained to me in laymen's terms. I don't know if it's even remotely accurate or not, but this is how I understand it... If the Big Bang is true, the universe can't be infinite unless an inifite amount of matter instantaneously exploded into being across infinity. This doesn't seem to be the case, and rather, the matter from the Big Bang is finite is size, but is expanding and could expand for infinity (or until something called the Big Tear?). Also, it was suggested to me that some "theories" suggest our universe is but one of infinite universes all within the eternally infinite multiverse? Relative to us, the universe might continuously expand the same way as mentioned above, but it is at the most basic level of existance ([i']at least, I think that's what the theory states[/i]) the truly infinite and primal multiverse resides.

I totally agree on both counts, and do the same thing, reading a good Dean Koontz in a Starbucks while sipping a hot apple cider or a cold vanilla bean, glaring and snarling at almost anyone who came too close to me. One of the reasons it took so long for me to build a meaningful relationship

the sixth line is grammatically incorrect. It should be "an idiot" not "a idiot," of course, what do I know? I'm just a idiot

I realize that now, I just didn't fully grasp his particular brand of undeclared sarcasm. Oh yeah... I would like to extend an apology to Cambrian for my misintrerpetation of his intent.

What good is that if it we can't even advance far enough to stop being a corruptive, self-destructive force? Yeah, we have some astonishing attributes, but the negatives far outway the positives. Doesn't seem very highly evolved to me. And that doesn't even bring into play how pathetic we would be without our nifty gadgets (stone tools included). In that sense, most everything else has us beat.

Okay, Now I understand Cambrian's point. Don't confuddle me!!

Most definitely

Meh, I don't remember if anyone mentioned him, and I'm too lazy to look, but I need to bring mention of Cambrian_exp

Blatant Inaccuracy #1; Quetzalcoatlus was a pterosaur, referring to a family of flight-capable archosaurs. It was not a Pterodactyl, which is a distinct genus of relatively small, raven-to-hawk sized pterosaurs. Blatant Inaccuracy #2; This is simply the stupidest thing I've ever read. There was never an age in which only reptiles roamed. The dinosaurs themselves cannot be conclusively defined as reptiles, mammals were around for quite a while, amphibeans had been around even longer, and birds existed, as well as many, many non-dinosaurian reptiles, not to mention our terrestrial invertebrate friends. Geeze, Another Fallacy; Yes, it is common knowledge that most surviving fossils are still around due to rapid burial. What you don't seem to understand, is that there are these events that occur even today, mysterious happenings known in many legends as mudslides, avalanches, landslides, flash-flooding and the deposit of river-sedimentation. I understand how you might have overlooked them, they being so rare and all. Oh, what's all this about a devestating hurricane striking eastern America? You don't think that maybe some things got rapidly buried under that, do you Cambrian? Or that many more things will be buried in the coming weeks? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- otherwise... you mentioned the Brontosaurus fiasco... You're excluding T-rex, Velociraptor, Triceratops, and Stegosaurus I assume? No one can say what is most famous. There are a dozen more I could add to the list, and you can rest assured, many children know most sauropods by the name "Long Necks," a phrase inflamed by the well-meaning "Land Before Time" movies. definitely an embarrasment, but you must be honest enough with yourself to realize at that time, that the field was no where near as well refined as it is today. Practically every skeleton dug up was designated as a new species, and most bone-hunters were in the field for the glory of discovering a new species. It must be expected that in such an age where public notice exceeds scientific accuracy, that some major errors would be made, both simple oversights as well as blatant farces... BUT The actual story of the apatosaur issue was that a supposedly new skeleton of a sauropod of a different size from the previously discovered Apatosaurus was found without a head. Yes, it's completely true that the nearest skull to be found belonged to a camarasaur, and the scientists simply but idiotically assumed it belonged to the new skeleton, which was dubbed "Brontosaurus," but this was due more to naivety and stupidity rather than conspiracy. Due to the greater size of the alleged "brontosaur" fossils, it gained wider acclaim, until scientist recognized their mistake. The term "brontosaur" was discontinued, seeing as how "apatosaur" was coined first. By recently, I take it you mean 102 years? The Apatasaur/Brontosaur mix-up was identified and corrected around 1903. Proper science has been fighting for accuracy ever since, and although Brontosaurus was condsidered a valid synonym for apato. until the early seventies, it doesn't help that people are too stupid to pick up an accurate book rather than a six-page kiddie-guide called "Pete and the Grumpy Dinosaur" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You do mean in addition to factually accurate scientific texts, yes?