nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

I bet you didn't know that this thread would have a part 2

IamMetaldave

BaZmO* wrote: »

This post is the 10,000th post

Pipped.

Mod: Continuation from the old thread, which is here.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

mikhail

Chancer3001 wrote: »

45km covered by the robot in over 5000 days doesnt seem very impressive?

It's not. However, considering it's 45km over rough terrain while being remote controlled with an 8 minute lag, and with no possibility of a do-over if it got stuck, it's bloody marvelous.

Wibbs

PingTing comes for Fire wrote: »

First words spoken on the moon were “contact light.” by Buzz Aldrin, as the Eagle touched down on the lunar surface.

Well it also depends where you define "on the moon" P. When Buzz called "contact light" they were still in flight. Attached to three of the landing pads there was a wire probe that hung down about two metres below the craft. You can see them in this pic of the Lander in flight.

There were concerns that the rocket engine would whip up so much dust that the astronauts would lose sight of the ground in the final critical seconds(with some landings this was an issue), so these would let them know they had made contact. There were concerns about the rocket itself that if they landed with it running there could be blowback that could over pressure the engine. So the procedure was contact light, cut power and drop the last few feet to the surface. Armstrong and Aldrins landing was quite gentle, others dropped more and you can see it in the vids. So if by one the moon we mean actually sat on the moon, the first words were more like; "OK, engine stop".

Three lunar rovers were left behind. These filmed the assent of the lunar module - footage sent back to Earth.

They did, only with not much success until the final mission Apollo 17. The problem was there was a five second delay(IIRC) between the rover camera operator on Earth pushing a button and the camera moving on the Moon. For the last mission the chap involved laid out a plan second by second going by the astronauts checklist when they'd actually hit the go button and lift off and pushed his button at the time he reckoned the camera would pan up and zoom out with the craft on the moon. And he nailed it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HQfauGJaTs

an Apolla 1 patch(honoring memory of White, Grissom, Chaffee).

That tragedy showed how rushed they were and how they had to come up with completely new solutions to Kennedy's promise of going to the Moon. When he made that speech the Americans hadn't even got a man in orbit yet. Previous spacecraft to Apollo, like Mercury and Gemini were tiny craft, Basically seats and a control panel. The Apollo command module had to be bigger to house three guys and all their stuff for over a week. Even then it was tiny. Like about the internal space of an SUV. Zero G gave them some extra space and it was the first spacecraft built where the astronaut could float somewhat free.

In this rush the first command module design had multiple flaws. Things like sloppy manufacturing where things like bolts, even tools were found left behind. The hatch being the major issue. It opened inwards and had two doors, because they almost lost an astronaut, ironically Grissom, when he blew the hatch on a Mercury mission and the capsule flooded and sank to the bottom of the ocean. He barely got out. So they reckoned the Apollo hatch would be safer. These flaws concerned the astronauts and there is this pic taken which shows their concerns.

The tragedy itself happened on a "routine" ground test. The so called "space vehicle plugs out integrated test" where the entire vehicle Saturn V and all minus fuel was run on internal systems right up to a simulated launch. Here's a copy I have of the checklist/manual from that very day.

The command module was pressurised with pure oxygen at a higher pressure than the outside atmosphere. Oxygen at those pressures means everything is pretty much flammable, even metal burns. The early design was also full of highly flammable material like Velcro, which apparently becomes near explosive in that environment. It also meant that they didn't have the strength to fight the pressure and open the hatch from the inside. So when there was a spark from an uninsulated wire somewhere near their feet, the whole inside went up like a Roman candle in a matter of seconds. Ground crew tried hard to get to them, even suffered burns, but were beaten back by the flames.

It held back Apollo for around 18 months, but the inquiry showed up all the issues and made them work harder to make things safer, so in the end contributed massively to them finally making it to the moon and back.

The computers powering Apollo 11 had less power than a mobile phone.

Yep, far less and the computers were another thing they had to invent on the spot. They had to miniaturise them down from the size of a room to the size of a large suitcase. And come up with software to run it. The read only memory was so called rope memory, which was actually hand woven and it could take weeks even months to "write" a sequence of code. Mad stuff.

Chancer3001

45km covered by the robot in over 5000 days doesnt seem very impressive?

PingTing comes for Fire

First words spoken on the moon were “contact light.” by Buzz Aldrin, as the Eagle touched down on the lunar surface.

Hasselblad cameras were left behind(twelve of fourteen were) which had taken on average 1500 pictures each on the moon(Film was taken obviously)

Three lunar rovers were left behind. These filmed the assent of the lunar module - footage sent back to Earth.

Apollo missions to the moon left behind them such items as - a gold plated telescope, an Apolla 1 patch(honoring memory of White, Grissom, Chaffee).

They also left behind them, and I like this, medallions honoring Russian cosmonauts, including Vladimir Komarov and Yuri Gagarin, both of whom died in flight in 1967 and 1968, respectively.

Their craft barely had power to get back into orbit of the moon so they had leave virtually everything. Cameras, scientific equipment, rovers. They brought as much rock samples as they could.

The computers powering Apollo 11 had less power than a mobile phone.

Lunar dust builds up at the rate of one millimeter per thousand years. In a million years, all items on the moon will be under a meter of dust. If humans start mining on the moon then, with the rate of dust movement, be buried much sooner.

Conchir

I read a National Geographic article the other day about early NASA Earth and Moon satellites and the photos they took. It has never occurred to me that in the 60s, these satellites they used to take photos of the moon and of places on earth had to use actual film. It's obvious when you think about it, but it just never occurred to me.

The CORONA program was a spying operation taking satellite photos of the Soviet Union. To get the film back, the satellite would drop a heat-shielded capsule, complete with thrusters and parachutes, with the roll of film inside. An airplane would then hook the parachute as it came down; failing that, a helicopter would retrieve the capsule from the ocean.

For the Lunar observer satellites in the lead up to the Apollo program, they couldn't send the actual film back. Instead, the film was developed directly on the satellite. Once developed, a scanner recorded the exact brightness levels of the photograph, in tiny sections. The levels were then transmitted via radio back to Earth, where the data would be analysed, allowing NASA to re-create the images. Some of the images are stunning, it's crazy to think they were taken in the 1960s, developed on a satellite by a completely mechanised process, and then sent back to Earth via radio waves. The film used was 70mm Kodak film, which is really high resolution. The vertical lines are an artefact of the scanning and image recreation processes.

storker

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

A dog extracts more information from smelling a pile of excrement than a human does from reading the Irish independent.

Probably says as much about the Indo as it does about as dog's sense of smell...

Conchir

The Mars rover Opportunity just finished its 15 year mission. The original plan was for 90 sols (Martian days); it actually ended up doing 5352 sols. That's 8 Martian years.

It is the rover with the most driving distance, either on the Moon or Mars, having driven over 45km. The Soviet lunar rover Lunokhod 2 held the record previously, at just under 40km.

It officially ended its mission on the 12th of February, having been non-responsive since June last year. It's thought that a storm might have caused its solar panels to become covered in sand, starving it of power.

(comic for another Mars rover, Spirit, but the sentiment works

mzungu

Deleted User wrote: »

Will it kill mozzies before they procreate?

Isn't that messing around with the food chain a lot?

Aye, there are ethical concerns there alright. I do hope they have thought things through on that front. The idea is cool, but you wouldn't want it to create an even bigger problem.

Watch this space I guess!

Fourier

Sorry for the delay, this required a bit of thought to write without a neurology info dump. Note I am not a neurologist, this is from reading neurology texts and talking to neurologists. Also my knowledge of biochemistry is an extension of my knowledge of chemistry from a physicists perspective and might not accurately reflect how a true biochemist would view things. This is especially important as currently we don't know if chemistry reduces to physics (a topic about which several books have been written)

Carry wrote: »

In this love case I think that originally the hormones came first and created situations to ensure that the procreation of a species or/and the food provision is secured. After all the idea of romantic love in our modern European society was only invented a few hundred years ago.

Though here you are right, because then it gets complicated.

Looking at my cat that entered my life as a starved and injured little kitten a few years ago, and that I never wanted (had a beloved dog), that little bugger made me fall for him badly eventually.

I didn't find another home for him so I kept him, brought him to the vet, fed him with the finest food (:rolleyes:) and he just charmed me with his affection. He cuddles up (oxytocin), makes me feel happy when he is happy (endorphines), makes me silly when I'm worried because he is out and about all night doing whatever cats do (dopamine, adrenaline).

So how come? I wasn't "in love" with him in the first place, but eventually with his behaviour the neurotransmitters got working.

And no, it wasn't love magic, I resisted a long time, it was his behaviour that created those hormones/neurotransmitters that made sure I cared for him.
Bloody bugger. He is like furry chocolate...

I know, scientifically it's even more complicated. I have degrees in psychology, sociology and political science and still know feck all how people tick.

So the first thing to say is that Neurobiology is a complex subject (duh! you say). I'll start with an example that isn't Neurotransmitters like Dopamine.

A good example is the so called "optimism bias" humans are supposed to experience, the idea that we are unrealistically optimistic. This was originally supposed to be shown by studies from T. Sharot and her team around 2011 and is often mentioned in discussions about human cognitive biases. However later authors found that the same methods would also find a hypothetical perfectly rational agent to be "too optimistic" and so there was doubt that humans actually were too optimistic. Even later studies found that if there is an optimism bias it's not a result of us thinking we are special, i.e. "I'm going to win that car, get that scholarship, get that lad to go out with me", but just an accidental biproduct of a slight error in how we sample data for learning. Then an even later study showed that that "slight error" in our learning varied from person to person in such a way that groups of people balanced each other out so that the group as a whole learned extremely efficiently. A bunch of people biased in a variety of ways resulted in a group that achieved solutions faster than a group of 'unbiased' individuals:

Lefebvre et al, Nature Hum. Behav. 1:0067(2017) wrote:

An intriguing possibility is that multiple ‘sub-optimal’ reinforcement learning strategies are maintained in the natural population to ensure an ‘optimal’ learning repertoire, flexible enough to solve, at the group level, the value learning and exploration–exploitation trade-off

So in the popular media what one hears as
"Humans are overly optimistic"
is actually:
"Humans potentially possess evolved distributed learning biases to optimise group learning strategies, in certain individuals this learning bias may at a high level result in overly optimistic thinking when isolated from the group as an individual"

Such complexities are at play in all supposed human cognitive biases, this is just the simplest. Often the original authors had a mathematically flawed or overly simplified model of "being rational". Also the problem is that there are many mathematical ways of modelling rationality. A well known example is the research of Z. J. Wang who studied the human bias known as the "carry over" effect. I don't want to overload the post and explain what this is, it doesn't matter too much, it was just my entry into the subject since it connected with my area. When modeled using what's called Kolmogorov probability (the kind used in betting on horses and most other applications of probability) this behaviour was irrational. However when the probabilities were changed to be more like those in Quantum Theory the "carry over" effect was perfectly rational.

So cognitive biases are subtle, debated and hard to pin down. You'd think that being rational would be easy to assess, not so.

The function of neurotransmitters is 100 times as subtle, debated and hard to pin down.

Imagine a sequence of connected computers that all day long control a massive farm and communicated via over 500 different signal frequencies. When you ask the computer cluster to describe the cows, you notice that the cluster on the NorthEast of the farm starts communicating 1.4 times faster with the SouthWestern one and ups the strength of the 2.4 GHz signal (Bluetooth) and lowers the strength of signals between 1.1 and 1.3 GHz. Now imagine you're somebody who doesn't actually know how computers work, you can just measure signal strengths and frequencies and where the signals are going. That's were we are with the brain.

Dopamine is simply one of over 500 Neurotransmitters. It's the analogue of the 2.4 GHz signal. It's upped in some situations in some people. In certain situations it's upped in nearly all people. However what does it do exactly? Is it the cause or just the mechanism used? We don't know. My computer uses bluetooth frequencies to talk to my microphone and wifi frequencies to talk to my modem, however Bluetooth frequencies don't cause Skype to work they're one mechanism or part of its functioning. Similarly with Dopamine and its associated behaviours.

It's even more difficult when connecting these things to experienced emotions, due to the Subjective Unity of Perception problem, the 2013 article of J. Feldman of Caltech university describes this well:

Feldman wrote:

At the other extreme, the Subjective Unity of Perception (Third section) is an instance of the mind–body problem (Chalmers 1996) and remains mysterious. There is no plausible neural story on why we experience the world in the way that we do, although there are promising results on the neural correlates of consciousness.

Biases are complex, Neurotransmitters far more so. Your actual experienced feelings? Currently off the map in terms of "Here be dragons"-level ignorance.

Poochie05

mzungu wrote: »

The latest plan to fight malaria involves making genetically modified male mosquitoes with self-limiting genes to stop Malaria. During sex, the female mosquitoes will receive the self-limiting gene. This results in having their offspring die before reaching adulthood, which is when they start biting humans. That means that mosquitoes who are capable of spreading malaria will die.

Bill Gates has contributed $4million to this project. It is hoped that it will wipe out malaria within a generation.

Also, only female mosquitoes bite. So discriminate and don’t splat the boys, recognisable by their feathery antennae! All they do is feed off nectar from flowers

Ken.

mzungu wrote: »

The latest plan to fight malaria involves making genetically modified male mosquitoes with self-limiting genes to stop Malaria. During sex, the female mosquitoes will receive the self-limiting gene. This results in having their offspring die before reaching adulthood, which is when they start biting humans. That means that mosquitoes who are capable of spreading malaria will die.

Bill Gates has contributed $4million to this project. It is hoped that it will wipe out malaria within a generation.

Deleted User wrote: »

Will it kill mozzies before they procreate?

Isn't that messing around with the food chain a lot?

I heard on futureproof something that will blow your mind. We gave malaria to the mosquitoes. They only get it when they bite someone already with it and then pass it on to the next person they bite.

Eradicate humans and malaria dies with us or very soon after.

New Home

Carry wrote: »

I had to google Marvin, found a pizza place and this on Urban Dictionary:

Can you please elaborate?

Ah, looked further: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy! Not on my cultural radar, I'm afraid.

Carry wrote: »

In this love case I think that originally the hormones came first and created situations to ensure that the procreation of a species or/and the food provision is secured. After all the idea of romantic love in our modern European society was only invented a few hundred years ago.

Though here you are right, because then it gets complicated.

Looking at my cat that entered my life as a starved and injured little kitten a few years ago, and that I never wanted (had a beloved dog), that little bugger made me fall for him badly eventually.

I didn't find another home for him so I kept him, brought him to the vet, fed him with the finest food (:rolleyes:) and he just charmed me with his affection. He cuddles up (oxytocin), makes me feel happy when he is happy (endorphines), makes me silly when I'm worried because he is out and about all night doing whatever cats do (dopamine, adrenaline).

So how come? I wasn't "in love" with him in the first place, but eventually with his behaviour the neurotransmitters got working.

And no, it wasn't love magic, I resisted a long time, it was his behaviour that created those hormones/neurotransmitters that made sure I cared for him.
Bloody bugger. He is like furry chocolate...

I know, scientifically it's even more complicated. I have degrees in psychology, sociology and political science and still know feck all how people tick.

No, Carry, it was magic.

Or maybe it's the fact that he showed affection and that he loved you that stimulated your "mirror hormones*" and generated a similar response in you.

*Yup, that's a scientifically technical term. Honest. Well ok, if it isn't it should be. So there.

Also, read THGTTG, all five volumes of the trilogy. It's worth it. And you'll understand why NASA found a dolphin on Jupiter.

https://i.imgur.com/zCJxxUe.mp4

[Deleted User]

mzungu wrote: »

The latest plan to fight malaria involves making genetically modified male mosquitoes with self-limiting genes to stop Malaria. During sex, the female mosquitoes will receive the self-limiting gene. This results in having their offspring die before reaching adulthood, which is when they start biting humans. That means that mosquitoes who are capable of spreading malaria will die.

Bill Gates has contributed $4million to this project. It is hoped that it will wipe out malaria within a generation.

Will it kill mozzies before they procreate?

Isn't that messing around with the food chain a lot?

mzungu

The latest plan to fight malaria involves making genetically modified male mosquitoes with self-limiting genes to stop Malaria. During sex, the female mosquitoes will receive the self-limiting gene. This results in having their offspring die before reaching adulthood, which is when they start biting humans. That means that mosquitoes who are capable of spreading malaria will die.

Bill Gates has contributed $4million to this project. It is hoped that it will wipe out malaria within a generation.

Carry

New Home wrote: »

Unless your name is Marvin and you're a paranoid android.

I had to google Marvin, found a pizza place and this on Urban Dictionary:

Marvin is a generally sweet guy, falls in love easily. He's soooooo funny, he can be cocky.
That guy doesn't always make the smartest decisions, though.
He has a great body physique, amazing talent at making out, most likely tall.
He has a nice cock. =
Marvin is one of those guys you'll never , ever forget. He's an amazing friend, boyfriend...just a great companion of the opposite sex.

Can you please elaborate?

Ah, looked further: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy! Not on my cultural radar, I'm afraid.

Fourier wrote: »

Oh don't worry Carry, it's not so much to say anything is wrong with your post, just pointing out the complexities of the area. Never take what I say as a critique, think of me as an autocorrect robot

I always take your comments as constructive critique. And please keep doing that. I knew while writing this love chemistry comment somewhere someone knows the proper science behind all that. I'm glad it was you because I trust you know your stuff

(I'm going all dopamine now...

)

Fourier wrote: »

Oh they are, it's nature of the linkage we don't know, i.e. which causes which, when, how many ways can one emotion be caused, etc

Probably the answer can vary wildly depending on the emotion, in some cases the chemical might cause the emotion, in other cases the other way around.

In this love case I think that originally the hormones came first and created situations to ensure that the procreation of a species or/and the food provision is secured. After all the idea of romantic love in our modern European society was only invented a few hundred years ago.

Though here you are right, because then it gets complicated.

Looking at my cat that entered my life as a starved and injured little kitten a few years ago, and that I never wanted (had a beloved dog), that little bugger made me fall for him badly eventually.

I didn't find another home for him so I kept him, brought him to the vet, fed him with the finest food (:rolleyes:) and he just charmed me with his affection. He cuddles up (oxytocin), makes me feel happy when he is happy (endorphines), makes me silly when I'm worried because he is out and about all night doing whatever cats do (dopamine, adrenaline).

So how come? I wasn't "in love" with him in the first place, but eventually with his behaviour the neurotransmitters got working.

And no, it wasn't love magic, I resisted a long time, it was his behaviour that created those hormones/neurotransmitters that made sure I cared for him.
Bloody bugger. He is like furry chocolate...

I know, scientifically it's even more complicated. I have degrees in psychology, sociology and political science and still know feck all how people tick.

LostinBlanch

New Home wrote: »

In 1995 Dolly Parton started a charity called "The Imagination Library" in memory of her father. The purpose of this charity is to post books to children from birth to five years of age, in the US, Canada, UK, Ireland and Australia, completely free of charge. Each child gets one book a month.

https://imaginationlibrary.com/

As of the last count, the number of books donated amounted to 115,144,128.

Coinicidentally, the first Irish branch has opened up in Tallaght.

Fourier

Carry wrote: »

I know that the whole affair is more complex than my explanation above.
But it was conceived as a Valentines hangover (in a good way) and meant as fun.

Oh don't worry Carry, it's not so much to say anything is wrong with your post, just pointing out the complexities of the area. Never take what I say as a critique, think of me as an autocorrect robot

I'm still convinced that all our emotions are interlinked with chemistry. One way or another.

Oh they are, it's nature of the linkage we don't know, i.e. which causes which, when, how many ways can one emotion be caused, etc

Probably the answer can vary wildly depending on the emotion, in some cases the chemical might cause the emotion, in other cases the other way around.

New Home

Unless your name is Marvin and you're a paranoid android.

Carry

Fourier wrote: »

Something to be careful of with is that these chemicals are correlated with these emotions, but not causal. There are people who feel intensely in love but show no signs of elevated levels of any dopamine etc when studied clinically.

Also the chemicals themselves are quite complex, Dopamine has a tendency to show up when one concentrates and focuses on anything. So for example you might be seeing Dopamine because you're focused on the person, rather than it being the reason you are focused on them.

Of course this ties into deeper issues like the "binding problem" etc where we don't know how or in what way the mind and brain are connected, i.e. from where your first person experiences come.

EDIT:
A decent explanation:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/10/27/is-love-possible-without-serotonin-oxytocin-and-dopamine/#695abe537d00

I know that the whole affair is more complex than my explanation above.
But it was conceived as a Valentines hangover (in a good way) and meant as fun.

I'm still convinced that all our emotions are interlinked with chemistry. One way or another.

Carry

Candie wrote: »

I wonder how significant it is that I met my partner through running, when I was already awash with endorphins!

Perhaps the secret to a lasting relationship is going for a run together, which we do.:)

Happy (endorphinal) people are simply more attractive, I'd say.
Keep on running, sweetie

And have some chocolates afterwards...

Fourier

Something to be careful of is that these chemicals are correlated with these emotions, but not causal. There are people who feel intensely in love but show no signs of elevated levels of any dopamine etc when studied clinically.

Also the chemicals themselves are quite complex, Dopamine has a tendency to show up when one concentrates and focuses on anything. So for example you might be seeing Dopamine because you're focused on the person, rather than it being the reason you are focused on them.

Of course this ties into deeper issues like the "binding problem" etc where we don't know how or in what way the mind and brain are connected, i.e. from where your first person experiences come.

EDIT:
A decent explanation:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/10/27/is-love-possible-without-serotonin-oxytocin-and-dopamine/#695abe537d00

[Deleted User]

Carry wrote: »

I'm sure that magic is easily explained with chemistry, too

I wonder how significant it is that I met my partner through running, when I was already awash with endorphins!

Perhaps the secret to a lasting relationship is going for a run together, which we do.:)

Carry

Candie wrote: »

While I appreciate the information, I know of another explanation for the whole love thing that I much prefer.

Magic.

I'm sure that magic is easily explained with chemistry, too

[Deleted User]

While I appreciate the information, I know of another explanation for the whole love thing that I much prefer.

Magic.

Carry

The chemistry of love:

When freshly in love, people usually aren’t hungry much, hardly eat and lose weight. The reason ist the hormone phenylethylamine that’s being released when two people get together romantically (it leads to concentration disorders, as well). The loss of appetite doesn’t last long, though. When they are happily settled they gain weight. In longer relationships happy partners weigh on average more than singles, in harmonious partnerships more than in troubled partnerships.

During the loved-up phase the body is furthermore regulated by the hormones testosterone and estrogen. These are, together with adrenaline, mainly released under stress situations which influence the gastro-intestinal-tract. Amorous couples know this as having “butterflies in the tummy” (and no appetite).

For falling in love in the first place, we can blame the neurotransmitter dopamine which creates a condition also know as “delusional disorder”, meaning loved-up couples are love-blind, seeing the partner as perfect and beautiful (beer contains an ingredient, hordenin, that has the same effect as dopamin - just saying).
This however lasts only on average for 6 weeks until the often bitter awakening.

Endorphine is another neurotransmitter that creates a sense of happiness, similar to dopamine. Amorous couples are so happy that they are enough for each other and hence neglect their previous friends. When they get physical all the time, not only in bed, but touch each other, walking hand in hand and the like, oxytocin is activated, the famous hormone that creates bonding. Keeping a distance or living apart is hence no good idea if you want a lasting relationship.

The instant chemistry (attraction) between two people is just that. It’s all about the genes that create immunity against illnesses. Molecules on the surface on cells emanate a certain scent that is identified as body odour.
Every human has their own specific natural scent, so when two people meet they usually “smell” if they are compatible or not (supposedly even when doused in perfume).
Studies show that the more different the genetic setups are, the better they match. Complete strangers match better than relatives or otherweise very similar genetic setups. Their offspring is on average more intelligent and healthier (the mongrel effect).

But there is apparantly a kind of optimum in strangeness. Too much diversity (in immunity genes) between two sexual partners could create autoaggressive t-cells which could lead to autoimmune deseases.

If you are not in love you can easily get happy hormones by i. e. running (releases endorphines), have a leisurely walk during daylight (releases serotonines), give all the people you like hugs (releases oxytocin; alternatively oxytocin is available as medication), have a laugh and a good gossip (endorphines), eat lots of dark chocolate (serotonines; my favourite) or food with chillis and black pepper (serotonines) and porridge and bananas (serotonines).
With these alternatives who needs love anyway?

mzungu

You might have heard the story that Van Halen stipulated in their performance contracts that a bowl of M&M's, with all of the brown M&M's removed, was to be placed in their dressing room. This is, in fact, 100% true. But there was method to their madness. It was meant to be a test to see if more important safety and quality specifications were attended to as well.

New Home

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

A dog extracts more information from smelling a pile of excrement than a human does from reading the Irish independent.

Interesting point, considering your username.

McMurphy

A dog extracts more information from smelling a pile of excrement than a human does from reading the Irish independent.

Capt'n Midnight

"Well ya see, Norm, it's like this... A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members.

"In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake of alcohol, as we know, kills brain cells. But naturally it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first.

In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. That's why you always feel smarter after a few beers."

GrumpyMe

On Dec 26, 1882 patent# 269766 was taken out by J A Williams for an "animal trap". Recommended for burrowing animals it was also recommended for use in connection with doors and windows...
More like "booby trap"!