 |
|
archives push me to post webmail :: xenii mail the hive :: for trading and raiding polymorph :: a cosmographia universalis chrisnelson.ca :: chiefwagonburner has a blog fortune cookie distro :: x's distro
I don't know if this is a problem, but as I published the last post I received this error: "Microsoft OLE DB Provider for ODBC Drivers error '80004005' [Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][TCP/IP Sockets]General network error. Check your network documentation. /blog_form.pyra, line 14" The post seems to have posted fine, so no err, no foul. Just reporting the facts, Mam! Awwa \A/
Aw A weigh station is where trucks are weighed to compare with their manifests (cargo lists) and structural specifications (for legal safety limitations). I'm not sure that that's the same as way station, nor if there is such a thing. But there is the term to be way-layed, or being left by the wayside. Perhaps a way station is a station along the way (trail or road). Yea, it might be the semantics that I'm balled-up in. But I guess I'm challenging if the way species is/are defined is correct. I understand what you are saying, that by definition different species cannot produce viable, reproducing offspring. The fact that some can produce any offspring is kinda odd. I may just be trying to take that to the extreme of being multiplied by millions of years, and thus, at least that many chances for the impossible to happen. Whether that challenges the semantics or the actual theory surrounding how a species might receive outside, extra-species DNA, I won't continue to argue. It's not a fully formed idea anyway. Here's a few interesting articles: The War Profiteers Card Deck Instant-Mix Imperial Democracy Pentagon Details New Surveillance System And this just in from Awwa Central... ticker tape sound, ticker tape sound, ticker tape sound They've seriously curtailed my web access at work. My boss's boss (not the new guy, the one who was already the boss of my old boss), sat me down and had the "your Internet usage report is outside of our policies" talk. Not only were the counts high and the fact that a few times I accidentally hit one of those no-no sites, but on one day I had a lot of what he called "hits" (basically page views). 900 of them, Heh! Soooo, with my tail between my legs I agreed that I would not abuse web usage in the future. It's those damned TIA guys, I tell ya! Actually, seriously, it may be related. Kinda like the Agency realizing that similar statistics are going to begin to be compiled on a larger scale, outside of their control. They might be accused of harboring web use abusers, and thus be in jeopardy. At the least, we all may have to watch what we watch in the very near future! The impact? Well I may not be able to post here as often. (sigh of relief from the audience) Okay, so lately I've been abusing this site too, Heh! But I'll still be able to log-in from home. And now for the comedy... Why don't gay women cut hair? Have you ever noticed that when a plane sounds low, it makes a lower sound? Why do they call it speed, even when it's real slow? If a person catches Sars, does that make them Sari? (Betcha I'm gonna be sorry I asked!) Peace! Awwa \A/
Aw In an effort to move mp3 files around, I use the hive as a temporary way station for music files, which I delete later. Currently, Ween's "Pure Gauva" has a temporary home in the hive, if anyone is interested. Wait. Does "way station" imply temporariness? Was that redundant? What is a way station, anyhow?
jimmy I am still trying to absorb your idea, Awwa. When you discuss the microbe situation, you're talking about natural selection. Natural selection and evolution are different processess with only superficially similar results. They're technically quite different. The microbe thing seems a little misleading. Individual microbes and microbe populations do not necessarily become immune; not in their own lifetimes, anyhow. Microbes run into a human manufactured case of "punctuated equilibrium" (at least the punctuated part). When the antibiotics are introduced into their environment, the first thing which occurs is those microbes which are most vulnerable to the chemical are killed off. The naturally resistant strains stick around to multiply. Natural selection is not evolution, because no new information is added to the genetic pot and no information is taken away (this predicate gets sticky). The environmental conditions under which the non-resistant strains were considered "fit" were replaced by new conditions for which the non-resistant strains suddenly found themselves "unfit". Suddenly, the non-resistant strains are the only ones around to found the new population. They've passed through a bottle neck! This is not evolution because the quality of resistance to antibiotics already existed in the population of microbes in question. [The same thing happened to African Americans on the slave ships. Only 1 in 4 slaves survived the horrific conditions on board those ships. Those slaves generally had certain qualities which lent themselves easily to their survival. This left the African American population with certain weaknesses and strengths when compared to the population from which they were stolen. Lactose intolerance, high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease, etc..] The most interesting means bacteria have for becoming resistant is through the passing of information from one bacterium to another through loops of DNA called "plasmids". I guess the plasmids change the structure of the cell they're passed to, and sometimes the new blueprint contains information which when implimented makes the bacteria using it resistant to antibiotics. Freakish. I have to read more about this, since I don't quite understand it yet. In any case, even this mechanism does not introduce new information. In fact, none of the mechanisms determining the advent of antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria involve Evolution. Again though, Awwa, I have to differ about your inter-species mating scheme, which by the way, is a very interesting take. [Why wouldn't they mate?] As long as you keep using the word "species" and the phrase "inter-species mate" you have to understand that the seperation of species maintains that they cannot have viable offspring or any offspring at all, and hence no mutations could be introduced. If they can have viable offspring, than they weren't a different species to begin with. I'm just trying to tell you that it's still a semantic issue. I'm not just being obstinate. If the rare instance of interspecies semination or fertilization even occurs, the fetus will usually die in utero. In some cases, even the sperm die in the uterine environment with all its acids and tanks and land mines. Sperm have their own general fitness problems, and they too suffer from instances of natural selection. *I think you're right about the resistance of scientists and scientism to new ideas, I totally agree. Evolutionists still get attacked daily though. Many of them are considered radical, even the classical ones. Someone is always bitching about something...especially, what you said: "I don't mind the idea that we came from monkeys. It makes sense to me. In fact, I believe that we are still far more monkey, than we are man!" An evolution theorist would flip about that, because neither evolution theory nor natural selection theory claims that we came from monkeys. They all have always said that human beings and monkeys share a common ancestor. Darwin himself proposed this. This ancestor was different from both humans proper, and monkeys (improper; bad monkey!). I remember once, at a party, hearing some haughty arty museum fuck babbling about how the general populace was racist because they couldn't accept that Human beings originally came from Africa and that also they could not accept that "Eve" (science's skeletal Eve and not biblical Eve) was an African woman; mother of all humanity. Drunk and tired of equivocations and the proliferation of so much bullshit, I reamed her because "Eve", while female and was mitochondrially at the source of our humanity (allegedly), was certainly not human and therefore definitely not black as we know the word, and definitely not Black /Non-Hispanic as our IDIOTIC FUCKING GOVERNMENT knows the word. WHAT THE FUCK WERE YOU THINKING SPOUTING THAT IDIOTIC BULLSHIT AT A PARTY WHERE OTHER HUMAN BEINGS COULD ACTUALLY HEAR YOU? I hope they all fucking rot.
jimmy Congrats Coop! I know it will be a perfect baby, a beautiful girl and an unbelievale woman! All good! Jimmy, the idea of species means this separation, unreproducible offspring, nueters. I understand that much. But all of that is scientifically supposed by observable science. Another observable evolution is that of microbes which become immune to antibiotics. That is observable evolution. All that I was suggesting is that more cross pollination might have occurred and stuck, than common scientific beliefs might suppose. Evolutionary theory supposes that within a given species, there might be mutations which occur, begetting a new species. I only amend that with the idea that outside species, albeit similar or related species, might cross breed, allowing for more chances of mutations. Perhaps we are looking at a given species and asking why doesn't it mutate? When we should be looking at the total environment of possible mates (beyond speciation), and asking why wouldn't they mate? This would not necessarily have a positive effect during status quo situations. But during situations when there is a great environmental change, it might happen a lot. There might be fewer inter-species mates, causing species to try exo-breeding more often. Multiply that times a million, and you might get a mule who can reproduce. Over the millions of years between mass extinctions, you might find a workable model that doesn't rely on a given species rediscovering the wheel. It might be in their genes, and, or in the genes shared by similar, yet separate species. Another way to look at it might be that, we have the definitions of which species are separate species all wrong. If indeed this is a separate species, it should not be able to mate with any other species. Have we tried all of the possibilities? Are we certain that this field mouse species is truly separate than say a similar field mouse? I know, I tend to way over simplify things. I don't have the integral chops to suppose "real theory." But then that's why I like Einstein. He didn't have much of the math, relied on other people to fill-in the gaps. I like to suppose, as he did, mental experiments, what if's... Evolutionists may be missing some valuable information, simply because they are too stubborn to go against conventional thoughts/theories. Just an idea... I don't mind the idea that we came from monkeys. It makes sense to me. In fact, I believe that we are still far more monkey, than we are man! Peace! Awwa \A/
Aw Speaking of offspring, it's a girl! (no proof on the website, you'll have to take our word for it!) I totally thought it was a boy. Heh.
coop Awwa, you said: "There is a huge division drawn between species, that they can't inter-reproduce, that those differences keep them from cross breeding." -But this is exactly the point of species categorization, as you'll note by the definition of "species". The formal definition rests upon the distinction that the two flora or fauna in question can or cannot produce viable offspring. The donkey and horse are classified as seperate species because their offpspring, the mule, is sterile. Many cross bred plants succesfully produce offspring which cannot themselves reproduce. This means these two plants belong to a different species. That is at least how I was taught. The issues you are talking about then, are semantic and are not a problem in nature. The most salient features of species seperation are sexually isolatory mechanisms. This doesn't mean the two animals cannot produce offspring if the sperm of the one fertilizes the egg of the other, it just means the circumstances under which they could actually achieve a succesful insemination are highly improbable. The Schnauser and Great Dane are the same species, but if left in the wild for a couple hundred thousand years they might evolve into different species, merely because they are sexually isolated mechanically. I think also that a simple isolatory mechanism such as this is enough for two animals to be classified as different species as with some wildcats (I vaguely remember a case). As for 'spliced' or grafted plants, that is another story. Chris, I recall reading about 8 years ago that much of the genetic material seperating us from other apes (such as the Bonobo) was "junk dna". At the time, the number of common alleles was something like 98%. One statistic said that this difference was smaller than the genetic difference between a red billed duck and a green billed duck of the same species, and of course, a specific species of duck was cited and I can't remember the name. I think the methods for acquiring the info were a little different, and your article is bound to be more accurate, especially since so much time has passed.
jimmy Just for you awwa: Chimps are human, gene study implies
chiefwagonburner Oh Conan O'Bian just now, Mark Wallberg just admitted to having a third, recessive nipple. I in fact have a pair of additional, underdeveloped nipples, right below my normal ones. it's very much like a cat has six or so. My nipples are inline, one below the other, about mid belly (for the reccessive ones). But as Mark described, they are not so much additional nipples, as they are collections of hair, with slightly pigmented (and on one side a slight pimple), minor and yet undeniably genetic diversity/memory. I guess most of you know about how a human fetus goes through the stages of animal development, as we understand it through the theory of evolution. This in that a fetus is first like a microbe, then a worm, then a fish (even with gills), then becomes more like a reptile and then a mammal, finally birthing as a fully developed human baby. Of course some of that genetic information is preserved. That's where I disagree with some scientific thought about evolution. There is a huge division drawn between species, that they can't inter-reproduce, that those differences keep them from cross breeding. I'm thinking that we are much closeer to other animals than might be scientifically accepted. That these cross-breedings might happen in nature, much more often than supposed (over millions of years), and that some of these cross-breds are fertile and able to reproduce the new hybred/mutated blend. We do it with plants all of the time! Whew, gotta stop now! "Put the keyboard down!" "Walk away from the keyboard!'M Awwa \A/
Aw I had another thought about the whole "human brain has more connections than atoms in the universe" statement. Perhaps they mean cross references. Perhaps by "connections" they mean different ways that information can be accessed through other connections in the brain. Perhaps there are thousands, millions, billions, or more ways that we connect to various bits of info, stored in our brains. Perhaps the possible connections are nearly infinite. Another way to approach it are on the meta-physical level of, our brains may be connected to other brains, or some sort of Jungarian "cosmic mind." Then our connections might number in the high Bazillions, if not approach infinity, with every neew child born. In my advanced age, I questioned the statement, "Humans only use one tenth of their brains." I proposed that scientists and other geeks made up this statistic to pick on people who don't know history and geography and astronomy and biology and chemistry and mathematics and economics and social dynamics and politics and Wall Street and everything... "Gosh those people don't use even a tenth of their brains!" That line about, "Those who don't learn from/remember the past, are doomed to repeat it." Is just a way to tease/taunt those who are not as historically informed as the taunter might be. A person is not dumb/stupid, simply because they don't know the rules of the game, any given set of information. (*Note, see below) New games and new rules (as well as exceptions to the rules) are made-up everyday. Can anyone keep up? Why try? History is interresting to me, so I read about it, re-enact it, play with other possibilities. But that's just me, I play with stuff/data/information. I try to break it/change it/use it/preserve it. I had many teachers (still have many, if you count people I pay attention to), who were great facilitators, who made learning not only accessible, but who injected inspiration into what I might do with it! They make me jazzed! I get up and do stuff, good stuff! Jimmy, you are definitely one of these people! On another *Note... Heh! I have this belief that ancient Egyptians were at least nearly as intelligent as modern day humans. What they lacked was written information. They started writing stuff down, but they didn't have anything except what they'd written to build on. History has lost a lot, a lot of written material. But from all that has been preserved and passed down, we have Egyptian Pyramids, Roman arches, astrological/astronomical data, agricultural practices and medical discoveries, Art, the history of, lineage and lives of the noble and less deserving despots, other sciences and construction designs/diagrams, inventions, machines and communications, the freaking Internet, etc, etc. Anyway, there is much that modern humans have to access and understand. Before we set the foxes/wolves loose in the hen house, perhaps we need to find the faithful watchdogs. yet even they may abuse that power. But TIA is like the assembly line, the atom bomb, space exploration, PC's, the Internet, cloning, genetic manipulation; once the geni is out of the bottle... My point is, this system of monitoring human activity is already in place. No one has publically organized it, or stated that such a database is available, but... On the other hand, if there are no Aliens, no one from out there, who might have these advanced technologies, is it even remotely possible that such technologies could be developed by modern/present day humnas? And if they were developed, aren't there always as many bugs/mistakes/abuses/loopholes/backdoors built into such a system as there are any useful benefit? If the "THEY" are able to install and use such a system, they really don't have to tell us about it. They might actually be using it even now! Why would they tip their hand, and reveil it to us, the public? Sieg Heil! Well, that's my salute to Bush! He's probably flattered! Bye-bye for now, Peace! Awwa \A/
Aw Whoa! Where's my "the new diaspora?" I liked it Jimmy, though perhaps it was too personal for you to keep up. That's the kind of wrinting that could one day make you a famous author, like Joyce or perhaps Burroughs! Anyway, it was sad that you had so much trouble at the airport. I'm sure there are many such stories occurring daily for those who fly the not so "friendly skies!" When I went to France, the customs people found a small metal object in my bag, and the lady kept asking, "Do you have a small musical instrument?" It took a moment and I remembered, "Oh yes! I have a harmonica!" Which was enought to get me past the carry-on scanners. Then when leaving they stopped again and started to do the same thing with the dirty underwear, pulling stuff out of my bag, when the agent suddenly pulled a small metal lighter (in the shape of a nude woman's torso, whose nipples light-up when it's used), he "Ah-Haaed as he produced it from the bag. I said, "I knew that was going to get me in trouble!" I mostly meant because of the pornographic aspect, of course. That agent let me repack the bag, lighter and all, and sent me on my way. We say 911 to mean all of this, that we go through now because of what happened on that date. But it is actually a symptom of a greater illness that our great society has yet to address, and has been going on for far longer ago than 911. That's our proclivity to suspect and accuse those who are not like us. It's in our nature, but there needs to be some serious education to get the minds of people away from such archaine, useless and destructive ignorance! That's what some of those articles that you posted Chief reminded me of. I wouldn't mind someone collecting all of that data about me (as if anyone could collect all of that useless nonsense about everyone, how much memory would that take?), as long as the information didn't fall into the hands of the enemy (in this case our own government). I've seen something about the guy who wears devices and records his daily activities. I think it's an interesting social study. And as for law enforcement, if it would help enforce the laws that need enforcing, then why not? The problem is they'd use it for their personal witch hunts; drug users, unwed mothers, welfare babies, abortion supporters, liberal agendaed persons, etc; to somehow manipulate the nation into condemning those otherwise harmless individuals. Anyway, end of soap box (for now)! About the statement, "The brain has more connections than there are atoms in the universe." Of course that is ludicrously false! Or is it? If you have a way to define connections as subatomic connection between the particles of the atom, then each atom may contain several hundred connections. Then this is times the number atoms connecting to each other, times the number of molecules connecting to each other, times the tissues connecting to other tissue, organs to organs (or sub-organs as in parts of the brain and general nuero system), etc. Still, it can't begin to come close to the actual number of atoms in the universe. Carl Sagan once said on that series of his, "Cosmos", that for all of the stars that are visible with the naked eye (taken away from city lights, on the perfect cloudless, moonless, night, say in the Arizona desert, for lack of humidty), there are still more galaxies. Billions and Billions of stars that we can see using instruments, from our one viewpoint the planet Earth. More stars than there are grains of sand on all of beaches in the world! Times a kazillion to the kazillionth power for the number of atoms in each star or star system... well, that is a larger number than just about anything else that can be described could be! And yet the idea of infinity says that there are probably even more stars and atoms than that. Here's an interresting site that addresses the question about absolute hot. Its reasoning in parallel to yours Jimmy. "The Opposite of Absolute Zero." Enough for now. The geo-locators boys are zeroing in on my super top secret hide-out! I'll get back to you once a new secure connection has been established! Laters! Awwa \A/
Aw Jimmy, I admire the counting. I am definitely too ADD to even try. This is seriously disturbing. Wired has the scoop: The Pentagon is about to embark on a stunningly ambitious research project designed to gather every conceivable bit of information about a person's life, index it and make it searchable.
chiefwagonburner Mission: Count to 1000 Start date: May 20th, 2003 start time: 2:56:03 pm PST end time: 3:04:06 pm PST Mission objective accomplished in 8 minutes and 3 seconds. Actually, it was earlier, because I (quite scarily) lost my mental footing at about 980 when I started switching 9's and 8's around as one might imagine dyslexic people switch numbers and letters. Awwa, numbers lose their meaning for me after about 25 (most likely earlier). Hofstadter has a great essay about "inummeracy", the numeric equivalent of illiteracy. I'm babbling now, but... The French film "Amelie" has a scene at the end of the film in which a young man has his mind blown by some scientific fact he encounters...the fact was something like: "The human brain has more connections [I assume neuronal?] than there are atoms in the Universe". I remember thinking about that fact in several ways, and changing my mind every second. Something like this: "Wow what a great fact!" "Wow what a weird fact." "W-wait a minute. That can't be right. Could that possibly be correct?" This lead me to more important questions while I watched the credits. Is it possible to have more connections in a system than nodes if every node connects to another once? Answer: Of course. Connections like these work by n! (n-factorial) where n is the number of nodes. This is naturally larger than the number of nodes, as it equals nx(n-1)x(n-2)x(n-3)...and you stop before (n-n). i.e., 5!=5x4x3x2x1 But wait a minute. Is it possible that the fact in Amelie is true? Hell no. Couldn't be true. But what do I know? I know that people read those things and want to believe them because it would be so damned cool if it were true, and we all look so cool spouting these mind boggling facts. I've heard this one at cafe's, actually. It HAS to be wrong. It took me about 3 minutes to get the director's joke while I sat in the theater. Those "connections" the brain has so many of are physical. An atom is (for the most part) nature's unit building block. Physical things are made up of a multiplicity of atoms. This means that for every physical brain connection, there is at least one atom, and more realistically, an uncountable set of such atoms. It is therefore obvious that the human brain cannot have more connections than atoms in the Universe, but it's awfully damned funny to tell someone that and watch them think about it. Granted, not everyone will spend any time on it at all like I did...they'll see the answer immediately...but those that do boggle at it aren't idiots (I hope). There is something about the format in which information is presented to us that causes some of us to accept it without question. For me, it's 'factoid format'. I was conditioned, like a lot of kids actually, by Scholastic Books, Cracker Jacks and Bazooka Bubblegum to accept curt, crisp factoids as automatic truths, and to spout them as frequently as possible. Interestingly, news media is presented to us in the same format. The bottom of your Snapple Iced Tea cap has a factoid presented in the same format. "Bla bla cannot blink their eyes." "Bla bla bla burns twice as brightly as the sun." "New research shows that Hispanic Americans bla bla bla." Usually, common sense fells the factoid demons, or reveals them to be true if delivered vaguely, and meaningless when the details are given. I am willing to guess that 4 of 5 news stories relies on vagueries and white lies to maintain your interest, and I've seen it proven many times when stories I have somehow been involved in appear on television. (Such as when I worked at the mortuary.) Absolute zero has an interesting history. It was found that gasses expand and contract at different temperatures, and that there was a linear relationship between volume, temperature an pressure. The theoretical minimum of temperature is zero Kelvin, which they marked on their charts though at the time they hadn't gotten anything even near this extreme temperature. They noted that the graphs of gas pressure and volume converged at a single point when plotted against temperature (I think, but there is one thing missing). At the point of convergence, the volume of the gas would have to be zero, and since nothing can have a negative volume, zero Kelvin was born. Not being a physicist or chemist, the idea of an absolute MAXIMUM temperature escapes me, but here's how I'd approach it: First, temperature, or "heat" is a form of energy. Naturally a question to ask would be "is there an infinite amount of energy in the universe?". This might lead us to ask if there is an infinite amount of mass in the universe, because Einstein tells us that energy and mass are related (E=mc^2). Next, heat is delivered in a specific fashion, namely through the kinetic excitation of atoms and molecules. Matter begins behaving differently at extremely high temperatures. It becomes a plasma and then after that, I have no idea. Perhaps physicists know or don't know. All I know is that I don't know, but I know how I'd start looking for answers online. I'd find out if there is a state of matter hotter than plasma, then investigate the rules that would govern such a thing. Finally, I had the childish notion that an infinite temperature (at least for a gas) would imply an infinite volume. If this is true, it might turn out that like bubbles, stars, elephants and cockroaches, there exists a theoretical limit in volume after which things simply collapse on themselves because their structure (in the roaches case, their exoskeletons) are a function of surface area and therefore a 2nd degree equation, and volume is a function of volume and therefore a 3rd degree equation but both have the same independent variable...this means volume grows faster than surface area, and pressures are put on the structure after that. It might be possible that the Universe, or a gas, or a plasma, may have a theoretical limit after which no more expansion can take place, and this limit may have to do with matter states or long distance forces like gravity. (This is provided that the initial assumption about expansion is even correct.) But again, I'm not a physicist and I am only guessing from what little I know. In any case, Awwa, if you want the answer to the question of temperature limits, you might find something in the above babble worthwhile to run a search on. I might do it too.
jimmy Imagine the numbers needed to describe all of the atoms that were born of the Big Bang. Imagine that all of the atoms that are present now, are supposed to have been created then, at that moment, the moment of the Big Bang! Bazillions of Gazillions! Multiplexed Googal pluses times infinity! Major mega, giga, triga, times more then that! Times times times, and then some! More numbers than all of humanity, counting all of the time, could conceive of counting! More numbers than exist even in theory! More numbers than can be calculated using the fastest computers! More numbers than possible! That's how many atoms there might be, and then the curve is closer to infinity, than anything recognizable by human contemplation. An experiment, try to count to 1000 (one thousand). Very few ever have, and it took up much of their lives, at least in concept. Now imagine having $1000. That's not real hard. Now imagine having $1,000,000. Now imagine having one thousand times that. That's one $Billion. A Billionaire once said, "A Billionaire is someone who can't count their millions." Humans don't, live long enough to count that high. (there's a calculation somewhere, that states something like; "If a person counted a number every second of their life, they'd never count to 10 trillion.") ............................................................................................... Mind Blank! (Or is it too full?) Awwa \A/
Aw If a blackhole strips away atomic particles, freezing them into a side by side singularity, perhaps that's colder than absolute zero Calvin. Singularity has got to be colder than molecular freezation. Or is it ultimately Hot? Maybe, when atoms are caught, mutilated, stripped, singulared, wrought; they are as Hot as they can get. I'm through singing now! -Sunshine- Awwa \A/
Aw Ultimate Molecular Dispersion UMD is the ultimate Hot. No wait! Ultimate Atomic Dispersion! UAD! Is the absolute Hot! Maybe it is the Big Bang... Okay, I'll stop spamming! (as if that were ever possible) Peace! Awwa \A/
Aw What's the biggest number? Okay so there isn't a biggest number. Or, maybe there is... maybe they don't know what it could be, so they say that numbers are infinite. Maybe there is a number that is bigger than infinity. It's like when no one has thought of something, that it is called impossible! "The world is flat!" "If man was meant to fly, God would have given him wings!" "There's no way that you can get fifty people into a Volkswagen!" "Grr...gle, peep! boop! COO! (babies make such cute sounds!)" Maybe there is a biggest number! This is similar to a BPE (Beyond Planet Earth) chatroom discussion, where we discussed if there was an absolute Hot. There is an absolute Cold, absolute zero, or zero Kalvin (?). This is the temperature where molecules stop moving, where everything stops moving. But in the other direction, is there an absolute Hot, where everything is burnt, spent, molten, over heated, superplasma ODed, hot under the collar, beyond recognition? Is there an absolute Hot? The temperature where anything and everything is over heated to it's absolute dissolve, as hot as it can get until it is no more. Okay theoretically, it should the temperture that is as hot as reality, the cosmos, any and everthing is possible to be Hot! the absolute Hotnest. Da-de-da, dum-de-dum... And in this corner, is the rest of my brain. Careful, it's kinda shy. Peace Y'all! Awwa \A/
Aw Gawd! It's stuff like the Glover story that keeps me in a perpetual pissed-off state! Well, Danny Glover just went onto my goodguy list! But will this madness ever end? Not if these jack boot Fascist Republicans have their way! Which is why this goes without saying! "Science Confirms: Politicians Lie." The article defends that stance, though. It says that politicians need to lie, and that the public needs to accept that. Am I insane or does that sound like totalitarianism? Anyway, so here's an amusing link to the "History of the Internet." Yes that's an early (college?) picture of Al Gore, way back when, back in the day... You are what you eat... "Flatulence Test Sniffs Out Gut Bugs" And now for Corn of the Day! Q> What did the dude say just before he died from eating bad suchi? A> "Man this blowfish blows!" Peace All! Awwa \A/
Aw I will stay clear of local/nonbank ATMs Interesting: Iraq May Break With OPEC. This would lead to a flood of cheap oil on the market, something the US would love. Personally, I wish gas prices were higher to encourage alternatives. It does not make sense to design our lives around cars. MSNBC ("Scarborough Country" I assume one of many right wing talk shows?) gets Danny Glover fired for his politics.
chiefwagonburner Jimbo, that is a great pic. Speck, that could be a new phrase - love makes the liver swell. Anna (Gosselin) and I went up to San Louis and were in Pasa Robles Saturday for the wine fest. Wine was good, weather was amazing, and the local produce was amazing. I really need to start doing more farmers market shopping.
chiefwagonburner 
|
