Science is Fun!
In this week's post, the FMRC takes a hard look at some current developments in the wonderful world of science.
First up, it seems that the argument has once again started over whether or not Pluto is a planet. The following from Ned Potter at ABCNews.com:
"Any 6-year-old can tell you there are nine planets. Maybe there ought not to be. Nearly 2,500 astronomers from 75 countries on planet Earth are in Prague, Czechoslovakia, for a meeting of the International Astronomical Union. During their 12-day meeting, they plan to debate a question that has long divided them: Just what qualifies as a planet?"
The debate in large, centers around whether Pluto should be considered a planet. To begin, I'd like to thank Ned for clarifying that none of the astronomers involved are in fact Martians or even Plutonians, who would obviously be biased in their opinions. Thanks Ned.
Ned further goes on to say that "Astronomers have a problem of cosmic proportions on their hands," which leads me to believe that someone, either Ned or these 2,500 astronomers, should be re-examining their priorities.
Does anyone really give a fuck if our current list of planets doesn't fit a nice and neat definition?
And moreover, do these astronomers really think they're going to change the list of planets on us at this point? Five'll get you six that if they even try to knock Pluto off as a planet, the public would tell them to go fuck themselves and go right on considering Pluto a planet.
Now they might get off with adding a tenth planet to the list (although the current name of Xena is going to have to go, which, thankfully, they realize). But then that's just going to open the floodgates to including dozens more planets, and that just makes keeping track of them annoying as hell.
I like the compromise that some astronomers have suggested, that we create a new term for spherical worlds too small to be considered planets: "Planemo"
Frankly it sounds like a cleaning product for planets: "Are you sick of your planet's lack of shine? Does the all the red dust surrounding you just piss you off? Advanced intelligence will never grow on a dusty, dirty planet, so pick up PlaneMo for that new planet shine. Now in lemon, mint, and nebula scents."
But if you think the most worthless thing scientists could spend their time doing is debating the what we should consider an ice covered rock several hundred million miles away, you'd be very very wrong.
Cause in Scotland, a group of scientists has successfully done the following: frozen mice (some for up to fifteen years), then extracted sperm from them, and impregnated other mice with that sperm. Ahh, the march of progress.
Personally, I like the idea that there was a scientist, a Dr. Macintosh or something, who was eagerly waiting for fifteen years, and finally he woke up one day and said, "This is it, this is the day. I've waited for a decade and a half, and today's the day. Today, I'm going to use spermcicles to knock up a bunch of mice."
But wait, before you condemn the experiment as pointless and without merit, consider the possible benefit: These scientists think such positive results might mean it is possible to extract sperm from frozen woolly mammoths and use it to impregnate elephants.
This would apparently create some sort of woolly elephant hybrid, the closest thing we could get to actual woolly mammoths. Just imagine the possibilities. We could have...big hairy elephants.
How many time have we all gone to the zoo, gazed at the elephants and thought to ourselves, "You stupid lazy excuses for mammals. If only you had more hair. Then you'd be good for something. Stupid hairless bastards."
Finally, it seems that there are now more overweight people in the world than starving ones. Currently we have 850 million people starving to death, and about 1 billion people who are overweight.
Personally, I think there's a clear way to kill two birds with one stone here. The obvious answer: cannibalism.
Now I'm not a heartless man, so I would never suggest we should kill fat people and feed them to the starving of the world. That would be wrong. But I am all about using the resources we have. And I figure that dead fat people must have a pretty good amount of edible meat on them.
Apparently a body-mass index of 25 is considered overweight, and 30 is considered obese. So let's say, anyone who has a BMI of 26 or more when they die is shipped off to India or somewhere and fed to starving people.
You'd (1) feed starving people and (2) convince people to try and live healthier lives, since no one really wants to get eaten when they die.
Now it has been pointed out to me that this isn't the ideal solution, since fat people will be made up primarily of fat, so it won't really be incredibly healthy for the starving people. But my feeling is that begging cannibals can't be choosing cannibals, so they should take what they can get.
And if they want a healthier snack, they should feel free to eat any astronomers debating what to call Pluto or biologists spending their time freezing and knocking up mice that they happen to find.
Category: Science
First up, it seems that the argument has once again started over whether or not Pluto is a planet. The following from Ned Potter at ABCNews.com:
"Any 6-year-old can tell you there are nine planets. Maybe there ought not to be. Nearly 2,500 astronomers from 75 countries on planet Earth are in Prague, Czechoslovakia, for a meeting of the International Astronomical Union. During their 12-day meeting, they plan to debate a question that has long divided them: Just what qualifies as a planet?"
The debate in large, centers around whether Pluto should be considered a planet. To begin, I'd like to thank Ned for clarifying that none of the astronomers involved are in fact Martians or even Plutonians, who would obviously be biased in their opinions. Thanks Ned.
Ned further goes on to say that "Astronomers have a problem of cosmic proportions on their hands," which leads me to believe that someone, either Ned or these 2,500 astronomers, should be re-examining their priorities.
Does anyone really give a fuck if our current list of planets doesn't fit a nice and neat definition?
And moreover, do these astronomers really think they're going to change the list of planets on us at this point? Five'll get you six that if they even try to knock Pluto off as a planet, the public would tell them to go fuck themselves and go right on considering Pluto a planet.
Now they might get off with adding a tenth planet to the list (although the current name of Xena is going to have to go, which, thankfully, they realize). But then that's just going to open the floodgates to including dozens more planets, and that just makes keeping track of them annoying as hell.
I like the compromise that some astronomers have suggested, that we create a new term for spherical worlds too small to be considered planets: "Planemo"
Frankly it sounds like a cleaning product for planets: "Are you sick of your planet's lack of shine? Does the all the red dust surrounding you just piss you off? Advanced intelligence will never grow on a dusty, dirty planet, so pick up PlaneMo for that new planet shine. Now in lemon, mint, and nebula scents."
But if you think the most worthless thing scientists could spend their time doing is debating the what we should consider an ice covered rock several hundred million miles away, you'd be very very wrong.
Cause in Scotland, a group of scientists has successfully done the following: frozen mice (some for up to fifteen years), then extracted sperm from them, and impregnated other mice with that sperm. Ahh, the march of progress.
Personally, I like the idea that there was a scientist, a Dr. Macintosh or something, who was eagerly waiting for fifteen years, and finally he woke up one day and said, "This is it, this is the day. I've waited for a decade and a half, and today's the day. Today, I'm going to use spermcicles to knock up a bunch of mice."
But wait, before you condemn the experiment as pointless and without merit, consider the possible benefit: These scientists think such positive results might mean it is possible to extract sperm from frozen woolly mammoths and use it to impregnate elephants.
This would apparently create some sort of woolly elephant hybrid, the closest thing we could get to actual woolly mammoths. Just imagine the possibilities. We could have...big hairy elephants.
How many time have we all gone to the zoo, gazed at the elephants and thought to ourselves, "You stupid lazy excuses for mammals. If only you had more hair. Then you'd be good for something. Stupid hairless bastards."
Finally, it seems that there are now more overweight people in the world than starving ones. Currently we have 850 million people starving to death, and about 1 billion people who are overweight.
Personally, I think there's a clear way to kill two birds with one stone here. The obvious answer: cannibalism.
Now I'm not a heartless man, so I would never suggest we should kill fat people and feed them to the starving of the world. That would be wrong. But I am all about using the resources we have. And I figure that dead fat people must have a pretty good amount of edible meat on them.
Apparently a body-mass index of 25 is considered overweight, and 30 is considered obese. So let's say, anyone who has a BMI of 26 or more when they die is shipped off to India or somewhere and fed to starving people.
You'd (1) feed starving people and (2) convince people to try and live healthier lives, since no one really wants to get eaten when they die.
Now it has been pointed out to me that this isn't the ideal solution, since fat people will be made up primarily of fat, so it won't really be incredibly healthy for the starving people. But my feeling is that begging cannibals can't be choosing cannibals, so they should take what they can get.
And if they want a healthier snack, they should feel free to eat any astronomers debating what to call Pluto or biologists spending their time freezing and knocking up mice that they happen to find.
Category: Science
posted by drs at 12:24 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home