Biodiversity: It isn't going to stay this way forever.

Set the politics and the economy aside for just a moment. I have a rant that I just have to get off of my chest. Have you every heard the phrase that "Nothing stays the same" or " the only thing that never changes is 'change'" or some variant, thereof? Well, biology has several places where it shows that to be true. Biologists have been able to study the evolution of species, the traffic patterns of species, the effects of weather on species, species effects on species and about every other variation of influence a factor can play on a species. It's a good thing. The more we understand the more it helps our species, homo sapien. We also have these scientists called paleontologists. They study the life history of the earth. More than just dinosaurs, any leaf or bacteria or fish can be just as interesting to study. Through the fossil record, we can discover not only how things came to be but things that influenced their species. Most people have a handle on these things. Most people understand that life is diverse and living and evolving over time and that many things that are not here now, once were. We're comfortable with that. So let me ask you this: Are you comfortable with the fact that 99.99% of all species living now will not make it over time? I ask because of this: "Within our lifetime hundreds of species could be lost as a result of our own actions, a frightening sign of what is happening to the ecosystems where they live," added Julia Marton-Lefevre, IUCN director general. "We must now set clear targets for the future to reverse this trend to ensure that our enduring legacy is not to wipe out many of our closest relatives." Let me be honest, I do not read that statement and have an emotional response. Most people do. Most people have been trained by society to have an emotional response. Most people have been taught to see a statement like this and say "...but I want there to be polar bears when my kids have grand kids." Why is that? Why am I indifferent and the average person emotionally responsive? We can't overlook the simple answer that I'm just a messed up person. In fact, it may be that simple, case closed. However, indulge me in listening to my argument for no other reason than of the time commitment I've gotten from you so far. In the environmental movements that urge us to "save the whales", or the like, people are driven to give money to further the cause of an organization. It's advertising and I don't begrudge them that. Environmentalist have bills too. The same with zoos and National Geographic and Discovery Channel. They sale advertising so that they can do what they love. To separate you from your cash they will play on the emotional appeal of the beauty, majesty and our connection to nature. Once again, I have no ill will towards them doing so. However, these images that they edit and slice and cut to sale their products and service are not a true representation of nature. We all like TV about cure prairie dogs, for example. It's non-threatening, kid friendly stuff. In the real world, these animals are responsible for the deaths of larger animals that break legs in their burrows and they are a quick meal for a coyotes. They also haven't been around that long, according to the geologic record, and they more than likely won't be around a lot longer, in geologic time. The polar bear is an animal I expect to die off sooner than the prairie dog. Why? He's a large apex predator in a narrow habitat with less living things to feed off of than prairie dogs. They have the advantage of being herbivores in an area that produces more food and they have more offspring. That assessment isn't personal. It's numbers and factors. The species that prairie dogs entail can take more stress than the polar bear. No human factors involved, I'd bet on the prairie dog to out live the polar bear. Therein, lies the rub. At lot of people seem to think that we should minimize the "human factor." I disagree. We're a species on this planet, too. We have access to the same limited resources. Yet, somehow we've become indoctrinated with an idea that we have to save these creatures around us. Not so. Some of them can't be saved. Where they live, what they eat and how they prosper is going to change with or without our involvement. People need to face one factor if the human species is ever going to make it another 10,000 years: we must adapt or die trying. Our best adaptions are the results of thinking, technology and communication. We're flourishing because of them. We can even seek to balance them. However we better leave the emotions at the door over the long run. Why? Quite simply, because nature doesn't play fair or nice. If you don't believe that, then consider this: If you take the best pet you've ever had, that cute puppy or kitty or gerbil you took care of and played with, and made him 20 times larger that his largest size, do you think he'd consider that if her were hungry and you were the only thing there? I don't. I think I'd just be a balding doggie treat. Likewise, I seriously doubt that the polar bears meet and discuss how they should preserve the seal populations. In fact, I'd wage that if most people were put on a locked cage with a polar bear and a side of beef, they would try to share or just let the bear have the beef. Most polar bears would just kill the person and have twice the meat. They aren't evil but they understand that food is food and we smell a lot like it. They are managing the resources at hand to survive. So, while I can understand the logical points of animal and habitat conservation, let's not forget that we should prioritize keeping the ones we need, over the ones that are simply cute, pretty or majestic. I'd rather lose all the polar bears and prairie dogs and get to keep all the chickens unless Col Sanders had a few recipes I don't know about.

And then there were breastses ...

MT. LAUREL, N.J. – The Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association (JPMA), which represents the leading manufacturers of baby bottles in the United States, stands by the scientific research indicating that plastic baby bottles are safe. JPMA supports the rigorous scientific evaluation process of the National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction. Does anyone ... anyone .... remember when we suckled our young? h/t Did I win?

Isn't it funny when science and religion mix

Researchers: Asteroid Destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah A clay tablet that has baffled scientists for 150 years has been identified as a witness's account of the asteroid suspected of being behind the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. .... Mark Hempsell, one of the researchers from Bristol University who cracked the tablet's code, said: "It's a wonderful piece of observation, an absolutely perfect piece of science." He said the size and route of the asteroid meant that it was likely to have crashed into the Austrian Alps at Köfels. As it traveled close to the ground it would have left a trail of destruction from supersonic shock waves and then slammed into the Earth with a cataclysmic impact. Debris consisting of up to two-thirds of the asteroid would have been hurled back along its route and a flash reaching temperatures of 400 Centigrade (752 Fahrenheit) would have been created, killing anyone in its path. About one million sq kilometers (386,000 sq miles) would have been devastated and the impact would have been equivalent to more than 1,000 tons of TNT exploding. Dr Hempsall said that at least 20 ancient myths record devastation of the type and on the scale of the asteroid's impact, including the Old Testament tale of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and the ancient Greek myth of how Phaeton, son of Helios, fell into the River Eridanus after losing control of his father's sun chariot. And the Biblical account of Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction: 24. Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven, 25. and He overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground. 26. But his wife, from behind him, looked back, and she became a pillar of salt. 27. Now Abraham arose early in the morning and went to the place where he had stood before the LORD; 28. and he looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the valley, and he saw, and behold, the smoke of the land ascended like the smoke of a furnace. 29. Thus it came about, when God destroyed the cities of the valley, that God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when He overthrew the cities in which Lot lived. For those who are on the lighter side of Sunday School, God destroyed those cities because they were places of wickedness. And by "places of wickedness" I mean things like wanting to have some gay rape with the two angels that God sent there to levy justice on the cities. Now, I don't consider myself a prophet, I'm just a guy that noticed trends. So, I'd suggest that if one were prone to believing the Christian ethos and lived in a place like Berkley, or San Francisco or Las Vegas, you might want to do 3 things: 1. Work really hard on staying on the narrow path. 2. Get a good telescope and pay attention. 3. Get "act of God" insurance on your house. I only suggest that because I like my help to be, you know, practical.

Idiots in action

Sometimes, the little details need to be pointed out. Let me highlight a few. A tiny Alaska village eroding into the Arctic Ocean sued two dozen oil, power and coal companies Tuesday, claiming that the large amounts of greenhouse gases they emit contribute to global warming that threatens the community's existence. The city of Kivalina and a federally recognized tribe, the Alaska Native village of Kivalina, sued Exxon Mobil Corporation, eight other oil companies, 14 power companies and one coal company in a lawsuit filed in federal court in San Francisco. Kivalina is a traditional Inuit Eskimo village of about 390 people about 625 miles northwest of Anchorage. It's built on an 8-mile barrier reef between the Chukchi Sea and Kivalina River. Sea ice traditionally protected the community, whose economy is based in part on salmon fishing plus subsistence hunting of whale, seal, walrus, and caribou. But sea ice that forms later and melts sooner because of higher temperatures has left the community unprotected from fall and winter storm waves and surges that lash coastal communities. "We are seeing accelerated erosion because of the loss of sea ice," City Administrator Janet Mitchell said in a statement. "We normally have ice starting in October, but now we have open water even into December so our island is not protected from the storms." Relocation costs have been estimated at $400 million or more. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Kivalina by two nonprofit legal organizations -- The Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment and the Native American Rights Fund -- plus six law firms. What you have here is a news story ignoring that this is simply a bullshit, shakedown lawsuit made by a bunch of opportunistic law firms. If it's anything other than that, I want to see the written contract from each of these non-profit companies that says that they will not tame one shiny nickel of money of any future settlement of bill anyone for any costs. Now, good luck in finding that. Aside from the facts that A) global warming has not been proven to be anthropomorphic, B) there largest creator of CO2 emissions are everyday people in cars and C) that the formation of ice in the ocean is more tied to currents than air temperature, they are missing one key factor: You live on a fucking barrier reef. What do you think barrier reefs do, if not erode? The only barrier reefs that haven eroded are the ones that were buried in dirt and became fossils. Just a refresher on chemistry, Calcium carbonate will react with water and carbon dioxide to form the soluble calcium bicarbonate. CaCO3 + CO2 + H2O → Ca(HCO3)2 That's one of those reactions that have been around since, say, 85 million years ago when creatures developed hard shells and, oh yeah, made barrier reefs that dissolve into the ocean. This is the kind of crap that not only needs to get a case dismissed, but dismissed with prejudice and maybe even stem a few damage counter-suits for frivolous law suits.

The power of Delta

One of the things I like about learning all the new science stuff that taking on a new degree has facilitated is the additional ammo for humor. It's funny, because while it's freaking funny to watch Ben Stiller dance around in Zoolander there is also something pretty cool about the guy who builds and does this. Science doesn't really make things funnier, it just give you a broader base to work from and a finer knife to slice the irony with. This is why, last night, after the Michigan result were in and the pundits were droning on I kept referring to Mitt Romney as "Delta R." He had been talking all about "change" during the debates in SC and to a lesser degree in his speech. My wife has a science degree so she got the joke, and despite not being sucked into politics the way I am, she pointed out that "Delta O" (or Obama) might reach equilibrium with Delta R. The end result of this quipping was some wasted time and this:

$10 closer to being a millionaire...

... One prediction at a time. It was just over a month ago that I linked to a new prediction website that allowed you to make money (on certain questions) by predicting the correct outcome. And in that time I've made $10.70. That's not a typo. Think of what you can do with $10 these days. Better yet, think of what you can't do, eh? Nothing - you can't do nothing. Except load up on double negatives. So click the link below and make yourself rich beyond your wildest dreams... At my current pace, I'll make my first Predictify million by the year 10341. Obviously I need to pick up the pace a bit.

If one were to ask me...

If someone was to ask me "So, what were you up to this morning" I could honestly tell them the following: 1. I got coffee from Starbucks. A venti mocha with 3 raw sugars, to be exact. 2. I helped my wife take my #2 son to pre-school where he will be delivering lines in his Christmas program. 3. I was bombarded by roughly 10 mSv of radiation, three times the amount of the typical annual background radiation absorbed by a human, from the area between my navel and my nuts. In short, I had a CT scan. The specialist I'm seeing about my kidney stones thought it would be best to know whether or not I have any chestnuts stored in my kidney's for that next kidney stone rainy day. Another positive side effect is he can get an easy look-see if I have any cancerous activity in the old prostate, since my dad is a prostate cancer survivor, without having to expose me to the eternally dreaded finger-in-the-butt prostate exam. I think most guys, if asked, would pick radiation over the finger in the butt. The process of getting the CT scan was over in no time and the only thing remarkable that happened was a discussion I had with the radiologist. Here's how it went: Him: So do you have any concerns before we start? Me: Not really, but I do have a question? Him: And what would that be? Me: Could you turn the thing up to, like, 11 or something so that when I get an erection it transforms like the incredible Hulk? Him: (laughter) Sorry, it doesn't quite work that way. Me: Damn. I should get the results from the doctor around the 10th of January and that's fine with me because it's not like the kidney stones are hiding or anything. Until then, I'll keep you updated if I have any new superpowers. With my luck, I'll end up with a magnetic colon or something lame like that.

Sometimes I kick antpiles just because I can

One of my favorite scenes of cinema is from Braveheart. Sure that "they can't take our freedom" line is good and he says a lot of romantic stuff to the female lead but my favorite line was a throw away line. His friend calls to William Wallace, after his inspirational speech to the Scots, as he turns his horse out to the center of the field of battle. He says "Where are you going?" And Wallace replies, "I'm going to pick a fight." Well, I'm posting this to pick a fight. Just like Wallace rode out there and delivered stinging insults to taunt the generals into battle let me issue mine. Anyone that tries to "save the planet" is a fool. In fact, anyone that tries to save a species is an even bigger fool. The ebb and flow of popular ecological environmentalism is based off of equal parts of emotion and stupidity. This is evident in the hubris of it's presentation, the blind obedience of method and the willful ignorance of most of it's followers. As a result, it is an armchair pseudo-science that is fostered and manipulated by salesmen and politicians. The presentation of environmentalism to the masses has been marketed with all the sentiment of a Hallmark card in a shiny green envelope. The message underlying the efforts of environmental education to the public are variations of the following: "The earth is interconnected. X is an important thing. Your lifestyle/humans/energy/food/whatever is killing X. Your money can save X so you can be guilt free." The problem is that contrary to the picture that environmentalist paint, not all earth systems cooperative despite however much you give. Additionally, more often than not, it's not a single pressure kills of a species. More often than not, any species near the edge of dying was there for a reason besides us. More often that not, environmentalist never point out the humanistic moral query of consequence: Even if we can save, say the "Horned Owl", is it our place to? Environmentalist always talk about biodiversity as if its a good thing. After all, more types of bug lead to more evolution of bugs. Great. However, what if we save a species that would have died otherwise and then later discover that it spreads cancer? Was there a moral reason to save it? On the counter point, what if we save a bug that would have died otherwise and would have had it's niche replaced with a bug that adapted to fill that niche and in the effort of evolution generated a sting that cures cancer? Once again, was there a moral reason to save it? If the possible ability of the bug doesn't matter then we should be saving anything from our presence because we are part of the biota? If it does matter, then how do we account for the unintended consequences of preservation? Even deeper, who is to say that our efforts to save one species doesn't doom that species if there is an environmental change. Likewise, who is to say that in saving one species that we don't doom another? For that matter, the H-bomb of these questions is this, who is to say that the animal, and even the environment, need some form of salvation from our presence when they have preexisted our presence for billions of years? To say we are morally bound to tinker with life is an arrogance that knows no bounds. Another reason that environmentalism is a fools errand is that it has such a blind obedience to methodology that ignores basic thinking for emotional solutions. A perfect example is the Greenpeace movement and it's save the whales platform. Forgoing the basic question of whether the whales are suited to survive long term, we are struck with the more basic question: Why? Why save the whales? Just because we kill them? Is it because they are a needed component of the food net we are a part of? When asked people typically respond with discussion about the brutality of whaling or how docile and peaceful whales are. Right. Whales may be docile but then so are cows. If docility and the brutality of slaughter are the main reasons why not "save the cows." The reason is that whales, quite simply are foreign and evoke an emotional reaction. Cows are more common and evoke cow paddies. As Denis Leary pointed out, we only save the cute ones.( ahem...9:10 on the video) Additionally, why not save the killer whales? Oh yeah, because they are less cute and more "killer." This brings me to my final point. So many of the people that are clearly concerned with saving the environment are also clearly ignorant of the thing that live within it and their interactions. What they are sure about is that saving the planet is good, or at least it makes them feel good. Despite toxic air and global warming she seems to breath so well on the cold wintry day. Let's look at today's primary scare: CO2 driven global warming. If CO2 causes global warming, by trapping the sun's heat and all it takes is the exhaust from fossil fuel to shift the balance then we need to accept that we are more than likely already dead. Why? Because man made CO2 is just a fraction of total CO2. Most of our CO2 comes from volcanoes. That would suggest that we are just a few eruptions away from tipping the scale too far. But wait, there has been thousands of volcanic eruptions over human history and we are still here. Why? I suggest it's because of the fact that water vapor and CO2 and Sunlight, the three global warming culprits, are also the three things used in photosynthesis. It's called biofeedback and it works because plants can grow pretty fast. Environmentalism is, at it's essence, stupid. It is stupid because it presumes that we can stop change. It is stupid because it believes that we can deny entropy. It is also stupid because it believes that where we are right now is the best it can be, that we won't be forced to evolve by a planet that has a consistent history of forcing evolution and that we can control and predict a systems makeup thousands of years from now with technology that can't reliably predict the weather tomorrow. So why does it persist? It persist because it feels good to think that you are being moral. It persists because it's a wonderful political point to say you are "for the earth" because who really wants to campaign as being "against the earth." It persists because most people don't want to understand the world around them, they just want things to stay the same. And as long as that continues, the Al Gores of this world will continue to whip up fear over a process that very few every truly investigate while he makes investments in the green technologies. I guess that saving the earth is in every body's best interest but some of us profit off of it more than others.

Predictify

Via Stumbleupon, I found a website that... ...provides a simple, fun way to engage in current and future newsworthy topics. Users can find events that interest them, predict the outcome, build a reputation based on accuracy, and even get paid real money when they’re right! Best of all, it’s free – no points or bets required. Going through the FIU archives will show you that a lot of what we think or predict doesn't happen. This site seems to be a cool way to track your predictions and even ask questions of your own to the general public. Give it a gander and if you sign up, look for Hoodlumman as a friend. We'll see who's more accurate once and for all!

What does a dork do with his free time: Bask in the glow if you dare.

Cross posted from my rarely updated photo blog: I haven't posted here in a dogs age. Part of it is being too busy and part of it is simply not taking a lot of pictures and part of it is just a natural ebb in the flow of the desire to blog. I find that I still have a decent amount to say because I'm still an opinionated jackass but I'm more than a little fatigued with balancing my work persona with my home persona with my spiritual persona with my virtual persona. Any way you slice it, I have about 20 other personas that are in there and that's probably 25 more personas than I need. I know that people pride themselves on being true to themselves and "keeping it real" and things like that. I don't. Too many parts of my personality are perpendicular from each other, they are lines that only intersect at a central point, which is me. To try to even bend them to a angle that is parallel, just so I can minimize the effort and the strain between them is a gargantuan task. Honestly, it's also one that I don't excel at either. As a result, I accept that I generate chaos and disorder and burn a lot of energy because of an unbalanced, unfocused personality. I used to fight against that understanding, thinking that there was a unifying personality of which all of my various diverging interest, tastes, discriminations, preferences and fixations derive from. Instead, I have since some to understand that this isn't the case but that these contradictory and juxtaposed positions are the result of my interaction with the elements around me. In a sense, the nexus of my personality, and the personas that merge to form it, are more like the spatial relationship of the intersection of points, in relation to the opposing forces of these positions. In that, my personality is not a defined trait but rather a variable within a definable position of these stresses. I'll try to post some images below to clarify the concept. Update:Here's a visual description. The 1st figure was my initial perception. In that, I had various roles in my life that I occupy. In the 2nd figure, you could see that when a role required more attention it dominated and forced the other roles into the background. In that example, for some reason, I have to go put on my Daddy hat and do some "Dad" stuff. The problem with that view point is that it didn't really express the consistent tension, alignment or awareness of my other roles. For most people I doubt this would would matter but I found that it was in accurate in expressing to other people the forces I fell acting on my life, and to a lesser degree it effected my ability to grasp the forces on other people's lives. The 3rd figure is what I would term as my current perception. In this, my life is geometrically surrounded by roles/concerns/purposes. Some of the purposes work as direct counter tensional forces but most are non competitive, while effecting the location of my state of being. As all these forces act, the state of my being finds an equlibria between the tensional forces. As a stimulus effects this, as in example 4, the state of my being changes. More stress in one area, effects other points. One desire in one area is counter balanced or guided by seemingly unrelated elements elsewhere. As a result, I don't feel that I have a role dominated personality, as illustrated in figure 1, but instead my personality is actually more of a field of probability defined by the tensional forces exacted on my state at any given time. In that, I feel my personal volatility of thought and nature are best expressed and I feel that I have a better construct for my tendency to embrace contradicting positions with sincerity without suffering from their nature. While this may not effectively describe your condition, I'm curious to know if this construct makes sense to other people because I wouldn't be surprised to find that a person more ordered than I would see this as a sign of a chaotic mind that is nothing like their own personality. In that, my model may now be accurate but it may be limited to a specific type of person, and eventually we might just have to say that it is just me. Additionally, since I have had little to no training in psychology, it would be interesting to know if all I have accomplished is to stumble on something that has been theorized long ago. In that, it would validate my position and provide me a new reading outlet. If not, knowing the competing though structure would be interesting as well. So by all means, cast your two cents and opine.

A great question:

From the visitor log: Anyone know the answer to that? Also, as you can see, Milla Jovavich is the top chick search hit for us now. Maybe when Uma's next movie hits the big screen she'll catapult to the top again.

My Oklahoma Field Trip or "A man and his dikes"

This Saturday I drug myself out of bed at 5:30 am. My goal was to make a timely appearance at a geology field trip I was invited to. Due to being an amazing kiss ass, my former geology teacher had tossed my name in a hat for one of 8 slots awarded for a trip to the Mill Creek Quarry operated by Martin Marietta. The payoff for this early morning rousting and 3-4 hour drive was the chance to collect Precambrian granite, dated near 1.2 billion years old, that had been cut by igneous intrusive diabase dikes composed of primarily basalt. In some parts of the country that might not be anything worth writing about but as a person that lives in Dallas and is surrounded by Cretaceous ages formations the chance to see, much less collect, igneous rock was a welcome change of pace. First, let me say that the people that took care of us at the quarry were the best. They had a lot of knowledge of both the area and the product that they generated. In fact, because of one of the guys that works there I was able to collect a great quartz in basalt specimen that I would have never known about except he drove us to the contact point where it occurred. I could bore you with details but let's get to the pictures. This is a good example of the dike intrusions into the granite. The whole quarry is powdered with dust from the work done there so it's had to see but the granite there is a strong pink. The dikes, on the other hand are a dark black basalt. I was told that when it rains the definition is much greater. This my accidental movie. I handed my camera off to one of the guys on the trip and asked him to take a "picture" of me. Little did I realize that my camera was set to "video." If you listen carefully you can catch the conversation that I was having with him while we thought he was taking pictures. I centered around off color jokes about me knowing "lots of dikes due to having a liberal arts degree." It's a classic geology pun. Also, the fact that I photoshop pictures was brought up when he worried that he had snapped a bad shot. BTW, the face wall behind me was about 100ft away and about 90 ft tall. What you wanted to try to collect was a piece that had both granite and basalt on it. This is a little more difficult that it sounds because usually they will fracture along the contact plane of the two types of rock when they break. Here's one that I got. I was also able to get a piece of the basalt with a quartz vein. Both pieces are about a foot and a half long and weight about 20 lbs. Before we left they took a picture for us of the group. The geologist leading the trip, Dr. Theis, is on the far left and I'm on the far right. Riding out there with him was incredibly informational. I learned more in one car ride that I ever thought was possible. On the way back towards Dallas we stopped at a road cut of an out crop that is somewhat famous in those parts. It's was a section of the Collings Ranch Conglomerate. Being a good little geo-nerd, I allowed them to use me for scale. From what I understand they have a subjective dumbass to square inch ratio for grading the sorting of the stones. While collecting we found the geologic society marker. As a rule, they generally frown on you digging it out with a rock hammer and then using it for a drink coaster. Still, it was tempting. In the end I collected a few pieces of the conglomerate. The thing that makes it unique is that typically conglomerates as finely sorted and the stones have been rounded by erosion. These are mostly still sharp, almost like a breccia. Additionally, most conglomerates are composed of sandstones, cherts and silicates. This conglomerate is composed entirely of carbonates and even though it looks like a pile of loose rocks the stuff is very tightly cemented. The whole trip was a lot of fun and I learned a great deal besides just bringing home a bucket full of rocks. As a result, this was a great Saturday field trip and hopefully a trend that we see more of.

The eternal debate

Because you "can" do something, does it mean that you "should" do something? Consider that question as you look at this. A scientist who built a synthetic chromosome from laboratory chemicals is expected to announce the creation of a new species, the first new artificial life form on Earth, British newspaper The Guardian reported Sunday. The new species is a form of bacteria, and the announcement, which could come as early as Monday, is expected to provoke a substantial ethical debate about the manufacturing of life forms in a test tube, as well the dangers posed by introducing a new species, The Guardian reported. Craig Venter, the genetics specialist who spearheaded the landmark breakthrough and heads the J. Craig Venter Institute in Rockville, Md., where the research was conducted, said the new species could lead to new energy sources and new methods for combatting global warming. "We are going from reading our genetic code to the ability to write it," Venter told The Guardian. "That gives us the hypothetical ability to do things never contemplated before," he said. For example, the bacteria could be capable of absorbing carbon monoxide, a possible solution to global warming, Venter said. While I understand the desire for science to advance it's understanding of life and the genetic chemical engineering of life, let's look at one thing. If you make a bacteria that eats carbon monoxide and it works and the planet cools that's just spiffy. However, if you make a bacteria that eats carbon monoxide and it mutates, as bacteria often do, and it begins to eat CO2, just one oxygen more, then plants die follwed by us dying. That would be not so good. If you make a bacteria that mutates and begins to eat just Ozone, or just "O", we loose our UV protection and get cancer and die. If you make a bacteria that mutates and eats carbon, we die. Ect, ect, ect.... Get the point? Nature doesn't exactly treat us with kid gloves now, but do we really need to aid her in wiping us out?

We're not lost: A woman's guide to "What? I know where I'm going!"

Sadly, due to the proliferation of women that believe that they are somehow equal or better than men, there is in our culture a narrative that must be addressed. This of course is the common female story shared in between the stories of stretch marks vs bikini exposure ratio and pictures of the kids at the beach. It is the inevitable story about how a woman's husband got lost and refused to ask for directions. This urban legend has persisted for ages despite many clenched teeth issued reassurances that we men know exactly where we are. In this post we will, for the first time, explore this myth and explain the science that proves once and for all that men know exactly where they are. Men and women, as most people could tell you, have distinct physiological differences. These differences allow for a certain degree of tasking prowess to be innately possessed by one sex or the other. While breasts give women the natural advantage in feeding children, getting free drinks at bars and winning wet t-shirt contest they pose a distinct disadvantage in other areas. Science has shown that the natural resistivity to electricity in water is low. As a result, women, due to their "fun pillows" and their increased water retention, do not have the same ability of their male counterparts to experience the natural load stone effect of the iron in human blood allowing for a physiological compass generated by the earths magnetic poles. This goes doubly for women with big ol giant saline transplants. This is also the reason that every woman that describes herself as once being "a tomboy" is twice as deluded about her hooters making her a bad navigator. Once the boob fairy came along and waved his magic wand, her sense of direction faded as the bazookas budded. A secondary reason that men and women find differences in navigational awareness is the difference between verbal and visual acuity. Women are typically verbal communicators. They, as a result, navigate by places that they have either conversed at or have conversed about. However, nowhere in there conversations is the spatial element taken for consideration. Instead their recollection is of "who said what to whom and what they really meant about that and does this make me look fat?" This information is unlikely to yield successful navigation. Men are a different breed in that we navigate by distance and landmarks and spatial relationships that are easily accessible to all men. For example, how far a distance to a store is to a woman includes the type of sale that they are having and the fact that she had a runner in her hose and that your mother never liked her. To a man the distance is regarded as the length "I ran in that State game back in high school" multiplied by "the distance I could shoot a rifle and take the head off of a lion, if I wanted to." See, there is nothing subjective in male calculations because they distances increase with each recollections at the same speed of the expansion of all matter in the universe. Our lies to ourselves therefore bind us to reality. The third reason that men an women argue whether or not they are lost has to do with math. While women are incredibly quick in the areas of math that has to do with figures like the actual cost of a sale item, "the amount of money I can hide from my husband" and "how much would I pull down if I just poison him and run off with the pool boy" they suffer in other areas. This is not an extension of algebra but of geometry and engineering. In female geometry, the shortest distance between two points is directly effected by hormones, hot flashes, what she's wearing that day, the distance to a Starbucks, what she saw on the lifetime channel and in direct proportion of the book sales of Oprah's latest endorsement. For men, the closest distance between two points is in relation to two things only: The time of the next sporting event and the distance furthest away from his mother in law. In terms of engineering the problem is one of conversion. Men know that a standard "foot" is 12 inches. However, women have constantly been told that a foot is 12 inches while typically only be exposed to about 6 inches. This false conversion, while nice for the male ego, distorts actual distance traveled in vehicles by a large margin. In looking at these factors we can see that men and women will more than likely never agree on whether or not the man is lost because of the huge difference in methodology of measurement and navigational reference. Due to the physiological, navigational, spatial, mathematical, geometric and engineering differences it is unlikely that this gap will ever be bridged in this life time. However, hopefully this will shed some light on the issue and raise awareness that the answer for women, who mistakenly believe that their husbands are lost, can adapt for practical purposes: We know where we are. We have no idea why you think we missed the exit. Your mother was closer if we turned that way, we could feel it and we're taking your fun pillows away from that as fast as we can. No, that dress does not make you look fat. It accentuates your natural curves. Can we get some road head? By adopting these point, I believe that we can put this myth to rest or at least maybe get a little more road head, which is a good second place in our book.

An educational update

I haven't really gotten around to this but I meant to. I am back in school again. This semester I'm slacking off in that I'm only taking 7 hours. I know, "what a puss." At any rate, I'm taking college trig and the second section of physics. What is odd is that the physics I'm taking is part of an accelerated course. You basically take two semesters of physics in one semesters time by going for what is summer semester-like hours. Now, since I took the first section of physics in the summer, I won't start physics until mid-semester. Not bad as far as the work load seems right now, but come mid-October I bet it will kick my ass. Until then, trig has been kicking my ass. Let's be honest, I've never considered myself a "math" person. However, in all honesty I never really gave it a sincere effort. In high school all I cared about math was when the class was over. In college all I cared about was when the class was over. Now, well now, I actually want to learn it, and make no mistake my friend the only way to learn math is to do math. A lot of it. What is cool is that I had been fighting this a little bit. The effort was there but the results were just not coming together. Undaunted, I just kept hammering away at it until last night in class when I had a "eureka" moment. It was like looking at the trees and seeing the forest for the first time. It was pretty cool. Now, I'm doubtful that I'll become another Einstein, or anything, but I do feel like my faith in my ability to learn things has been justified a little bit and the task of getting through 2 semesters of calculus seems a little less impossible. In the end it will be like every other journey, one step at a time.

Global Warming: Today's fear mongering moment

Today, the San Francisco Chronicle had a spiffy editorial about how global warming needs to be the political priority of this next election candidates. In that article, they had sweet nuggets of wisdom like "If unchecked, it (global warming) will threaten our national security, stress our economy and degrade our quality of life in so many ways." They also conclude that "Our willingness to confront this unprecedented heating of the planet is a test of our moral obligation to our children and their children." Of course, it's not "unprecedented" but why quibble. Let's carry on. So all of those running for office need to be enviro-warriors because "The world effectively lost eight years in the effort to apply a brake to climate change while the Bush administration slowly evolved from denial to foot dragging in response to a strong scientific consensus that human activity - namely, the consumption of fossil fuels - was putting life on Earth on a collision course with disaster." That's right. I am, to some degree according to the editorial, the reason that we are all going to die. See, not only do I burn fossil fuels in my car but I work for an oil and gas company that finds the fossil fuels to burn in your cars. All of this is because I am failing to fulfill my "moral obligation to our children and their children." Really, we're all little thugish eco-nazis with suvs. After all there is consensus. The scientist have consensus. WTF is our problem? Look at this. Lonnie Thompson, geology professor from Ohio State, showed measurements and photos of shrinking glaciers around the globe to underscore the damage from greenhouse gases. The thawing that has exposed plants and an "iceman" carcass for the first time in 5,200 years is a clear indication that something is terribly amiss, he suggested. Ben Santer, a physicist and atmospheric science at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, was ostracized by some members of Congress a decade ago for daring to contribute to the International Panel on Climate Change finding that human activity was probably an influence on global warming. Ten years later, a growing body of evidence has vindicated Santer, and he speaks without fear of political retribution. "We are," he told the editors, "irrevocably changing the climate." The debate is no longer about whether the Earth is warming at a disturbing rate, but by how much. "We're spinning the wheel," Santer said. By 2100, the "most likely scenario" - a 1 in 4 chance - is that planet temperatures would increase by 2 to 2.5 degrees centigrade, he said. Terry Root, a biologist at the Woods Institute for the Environment, said the planet already is "right at the edge of a mass extinction event." There is ample evidence of species changing migration habits and otherwise seeking new habitat because of climate change. If temperatures were to rise more than 4 degrees centigrade by century's end, she said, 40 percent of known species in the world would become extinct. You know, I think at this point we just need to panic and thrash about. I'll lead. "AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" OK... I feel better now. Lets continue. So why shouldn't we all go jump off a cliff? Seriously, let's just go get our kids toss them off high buildings and then jump right after them, right? Well, I guess it's because in global warming they typically forget to tell the whole story. Half the story can be fun, don't get me wrong. In fact, in some Hollywood movies it might be preferable, but sometimes it helps to see the whole story. Sometimes. For example, that "sea levels rising" thing... Yeah that happens. Look at earth history for a sec. It's called Transgression and Regression. Of course, it's not like the earth doesn't change anyway. Click on the picture and look at this. It's a image of the planet of the last couple plus billion years. Take a good look and notice how much it's changed. Notice that there were times with glaciers and without glaciers. There were times with nearly no exposed land and times with a lot of exposed land. then think about this: ALL OF THAT HAPPENED WITHOUT ANY HUMAN INTERFERENCE. I know, freaky isn't it. It's like the planet has systems that function independent of us. It also shows us that just like we weren't in control back then, we aren't in control now and we probably won't be in control any time in the future. Also, there is the fact that humans have been kicking around as homo sapiens for about 10,000 years. That's not a really long track record compared to something like the shark which has been around for about 360 million years. Likewise, scientists normally don't give you the info that 99% of all the species that have ever existed are now extinct. For perspective, let's play a game. I'm going to give you a list: cats, dogs, pigs, chickens, cows, donkeys, spotted owls, whales, bald eagles, otters iguanas, spiders, roaches, ants, carp, geckos, dolphins, meerkats, turtles, hamsters canaries, wolves, salmon, seals, sea lions, manatees, falcons, sparrows, doves, mice sharks, armadillos, geese, ducks, horses, beetles, snakes, worms, termites, rats parrots, quail, humans, grasshoppers, caribou, lice, ticks, mites, crabs, scorpions Ok, there is a list of fifty animals. Pick one type and imagine that all the other ones die. Over time, that's pretty much what happens. Either a life form evolves or it dies. Actually, I doubled the odds of survivorship because I got lazy and only listed 50 but The same thing goes for us. Hey, I'm a giver. Still, either we'll evolve or we'll die out. I know that the whole story isn't as "sexy" and it won't get you on the news as often but these scientist should already know this. However, it's politically, egotistically and financially expedient to omit the whole story and the balance that it provides because it doesn't fit the politics of what the politicians want you to hear. The message they are playing is the same "Pick me because your too stupid to stop this but we can by making rules for you, the stupid people." That might be the case, if what they were saying was totally true. However, it's not. What's worse is that there are hundreds of other things that could wipe out life on this planet in a matter or days, but they don't platform on those because that would cause hysteria. Instead, we'll scare you about a process that takes hundreds of years to raise the ocean leve 7 inches in order to control your life today. A process that we can't stop and don't understand but will tell you that we can prevent despite the fact that stopping the process is totally physically, energetically, biologically, geologically and chemically impossible to control. Pardon me, if I don't drink the kool aide on that one. (BTW, for the creationist: Genesis 9:8-11 "8 Then God told Noah and his sons, 9 “I hereby confirm my covenant with you and your descendants, 10 and with all the animals that were on the boat with you—the birds, the livestock, and all the wild animals—every living creature on earth. 11 Yes, I am confirming my covenant with you. Never again will floodwaters kill all living creatures; never again will a flood destroy the earth.”) So what to do? Here's what you do: Accept that your going to die. No really. I mean it. I can say for a fact that ALL OF YOU WILL DIE with 100% scientific accuracy. Now decide how you want to try to live? If you want to live trying to hold on to the current climate, scared of change, bound in fear then by all means vote for these fear mongers. It won't work but maybe it will make you feel better. I doubt it but who knows. It's like putting a paper bag over your head, it might help. Of course, the other option is to see that the things that we build and the stuff that we learn will probably be our best bet at an answer for how humans can take on the changes of a world that will change anyway and allow us to adapt. In that, we're better off if we understand that the car of today is the horse of yesterday and will probably become a novelty to whatever we develop tomorrow. Or, there's always panic!!!!

For those with humor

This is an excerpt from the uncyclopedia on the entry for the occupation of geologist. The Great Geologist-Engineer Controversy Geologists, secure in their vague estimates have forever conflicted with engineers and their need for a definitive, quantifiable answer since the building of the pyramids. The ancient Egyptian engineers had determined that the Great Pyramid would require 16.356732519874886510 metric tons of stone blocks to construct. The ancient Egyptian geologists yawned and disagreed. When it turned out that only 16.356732519874886509 metric tons were required, the geologists sneered and said, "I told you your calculations were wrong." The geologists, having been proven correct and superior, have been envied by engineers since that fateful day. Geology, being an art as much as a science, has always baffled and worried engineers, hence the engineers' defensive weapons of pocket protectors, slide rules, black socks, and eventually computers. But these have been no match for the geologist's rock hammer, hand lens, and Brunton compass (Note that the Microsoft software engineers did not even include Brunton in Word's spellcheck dictionary). While geologists have provided mankind with massive sources of energy such as coal, gas, and flatulence, engineers have been relegated to merely designing tanks to hold these natural resources. It's actually a pretty funny entry.

MALARKEY!

Ok, time for a quick poll of the FIU readership. Topic? This: One in four women would consider having sex with another woman according to a new online survey of the nation’s female sex lives. Ninety-one per cent of the women questioned described themselves as either heterosexual or straight in the survey, but 26 per cent admitted that they would consider having sex with a women, or that they had fantasised about it. The question: This is bullshit, right? I've dated plenty over the years and not once did I find a woman that would go for this. Now, I'm not complaining - it could be that the women I dated were similar in certain ways. So here's my question to you guys and gals: Guys, ever met one of these one in four? If you dated 20 women, technically, five of them were ready to explore, right? Gals, between you and your girlfriends (not that kind, obviously), what was the percentage? How many of you are lying? Discuss. Vigorously.

For your consideration...

This is George Jones This is Jim Carey And they're never in the same place at the same time.... Think about it. Has Canada been cloning?

Men's Health Study: Sex is good for your heart

Need another good reason to have sex? Well, Irish researchers believe they have one: It's good for your heart, according to a report in Psychology Today. Researchers from the University of Bristol and Queen's University of Belfast studied 2,500 men ages 45 to 59 for 10 years and found that men who have three or more orgasms a week are 50 percent less likely to die from coronary heart disease. The findings also suggested that sex can be used to help prevent heart attacks and strokes as a means of fulfilling the recommendation for sustained physical activity for at least 20 minutes, three times a week. Other suprising data that they uncovered in thier studies: ~ Watching football (soccer) will make men better fathers and husbands ~ Drinking Guiness and Harp will cause men to be romantic ~ A daily regiment of recieving multiple blow jobs from their wife will make men extra alert and attentive to thier wives. (Seriously guys, I keep telling you women aren't going to buy our whole "Science/health" angle. We need to go with the "shoe sale" idea or the "exteme nightly drinking kills fat and increases boob size" angle if we really expect to score more sex. Those scientist are cracked. Besides, they're scientist, like they're authorities on getting laid?)

Another reason to hate the enviromental alternitive fuel movement

I've alwyas know that the alternitve fuel crowd was full of sketchy chemistry and snake oil salesmen but now they are dealing with thier own problems: Internet driven greasy bastards. A local company has employed for many years a former Texas Ranger and a former Texas cop to track down criminals stealing a valuable substance - restaurant grease. Their job has gotten busier. The rising price of ethanol and increasing popularity of biodiesel fuel have spurred more people to take grease from traps behind restaurants to convert it to biodiesel or sell it on the black market. Cold Spring-based Griffin Industries Inc. employs former Texas Ranger Al Cuellar and former San Antonio cop Larry Findley to work with law enforcement all over the country to curb the thefts that can cost Griffin thousands of dollars each week. The company is an animal rendering and recycling company that renders restaurant grease and either sells it or manufactures it into useful substances, such as biodiesel and animal feed. The company keeps grease containers at many types of restaurants throughout the United States. Robert Griffin, president/CEO of Griffin Industries, wouldn't say how much grease thefts cost the company, but said the crime is increasing. "It has grown everywhere," Griffin said. "Many want to convert it to biodiesel. They think it is there for the taking." Grease thieves will often sneak behind restaurants at night, break the locks on containers and spill grease everywhere, said Findley, who has worked for Griffin Industries for 16 years. Thieves will often make off with 1,500 pounds of grease in one haul and sell it for between 10 and 15 cents a pound, Findley said. Texas and Oklahoma have been the hotbed of grease thieves for most of the past 20 years, Findley said. When Findley started with Griffin 16 years ago, there would be as many as 30 to 40 grease thefts in the Houston area each night. "We would make as much as six arrests in a night," Findley said. As the company and law enforcement made progress in Texas, about two years ago grease thefts started to increase elsewhere in the country, Findley said. A new type of grease thief has emerged in recent years. Average people concerned more about fuel efficiency than the street value of grease have been caught pilfering grease traps, Findley said. Biodiesel conversion kits have encouraged people to steal grease to run their car on it, he said. Many think they are entitled to the grease. "This is a recent phenomenon. These people are the worst kind of thief," Findley said. "They don't know they are stealing. The Internet is replete with how to make this stuff. They have no idea what they are doing." But these people can find themselves behind bars with serious theft charges, Findley said. The damage is both environmental and financial. "Our goal is environmental protection and neatness. Their goal is stealth and speed," Findley said. "They take grease out of containers by dipping it out. They spill the grease all over the place." The cost to restaurants and companies can be thousands of dollars, Findlay said. Few restaurants in Northern Kentucky have fallen victim so far. No members of the Northern Kentucky chapter of the Kentucky Restaurant Association have said they experienced this, said president Ted Vonden Benken. Griffin Industries is working to keep grease thieves away. "They think they can get this stuff," Findley said. "They are stealing from us. It is outright theft. They are causing an environmental risk hazard. They spill stuff all over the parking lot." A travesty, they should know better. Folks, leave the spilling of chemicals to us oil and gas types. For God's sake, we're professional we know what we're doing. (h/t mom)

Friday's mineral porn

Chemistry: Al 2 SiO 4 (F, OH) 3, Aluminum silicate fluoride hydroxide. Class: Silicates Subclass: Nesosilicates Uses: gemstones and optical properties are useful in industry. Topaz is a common gemstone that has been used for centuries in jewelry. Its golden brown to yellow color is classic but is confused with the less valuable citrine, which is sold under the name topaz. The blue topaz that is often confused with aquamarine is rarely natural and is produced by irradiating and then heating clear crystals. Topaz is the November Birthstone.

Bridging the gap with some very "sexy" engineering

and, it's right in my back yard! Well, close enough that I can wander through the park behind my house to watch. Tonight's replacement of the Island Park bridges will make Canadian highway history, save millions of dollars, and give the public a look at adventurous engineering. For the first time in Canada, a highway bridge will be replaced overnight using rapid-lift technology known as self-propelled modular transporters. The new technique will reduce two years of traffic tieups to a mere 15 hours and save $2.4 million in traffic detour costs. It will also save time and money for motorists. ... The "live cam" is up and working. The process is supposed to start tonight at 8pm EST and finish by noon tomorrow. There's an animation of it here. I'm taking my lawn chair, my camera and my cooler! "If you build it, they will come!" UPDATE: Sunday 1PM ... It's in the bag.