Dr. Dalek

This question of animal crulty extends beyond animal testing into outdoor sports and food. As a hunter it is my first priority to kill an animal quickly, so as to make sure it doesn't get away, and to make sure it dosn't suffer. I agree with ecoli's assertion that you should be warry in trusting organisations like these. For one we hunters have an instinct that tells us to avoid contact with them at all costs. I like ur thinking! Save the Lab mice! Test OJ!

Who knows, maybe it rises from a disatisfaction with their appearance. I don't know much about these "furies" but it seems likely that most people at some point try to imagine what it would be like to be something other than human. Maybe these guys just take it a little too seriously.

Women who take testosterone often grow larger muscles. Also mamilian species that are female dominant will have females with larger muscles and larger ammounts of testosterone.

Intentionaly sending organisms into space would be a gross violation of Nasa's "No Contamiation" policy. In the search for exteraterrestrial life they don't want accidently have any organisms in a space ship escape and multiply on an acctual planet, because finding them years later would get everyone exited about finding exteraterrestrial life only to have them let down by the fact that it is just an accidental human transplant. This is the reason that one Jovian probe was made to crash into Jupiter rather than let drift in orbit. It may crash into Europa, or Titan and contaminate tham with Earth organisms. Or worse radio active plutonium which may effect any life that is already there. If you were going to simulate the conditions of a planet it could be done on Earth, better yet if you were just using single celled extreamophiles, you would not need a very large enclosure to house them. The simulated planet could probably be about the size of a desk.

Induce them? How?

Yes, "clear the area around its orbit" is too vague. What is the cut off, Pluto could be said to clear the area around its orbit but just a very small area proportional to its gravity. Whats the break off point of the area size it has to clear? Is that even addressed or specified at all?

Why don' they have Darwin? Or Gregor Johann Mendel?

Antoher problem is that the sample groups don't seem to be equal, I'm getting more enviromentalists answering than non-environmentailsts

That still dosn't answer the Trojan question; and dosn't this new definition discount Neptune as a planet? It has failed to clear Pluto, Charon, and UB313 from the area around it's orbit.

So they say its not a planet then they say its a "Dwarf Planet." Why isn't a dwarf planet a planet?

Here are some good ones. Prostetic Bird Skunk Ditch Death Soup Bambo Charlitin Sack Salid and my personal favorite . . . . Maximum Pants

No.

That is very true, I once saw a documentary on "Sea Monsters" a Marine Biologist on the show commented on how he got samples and inquirys reguarding "Blobs" people find washed up on the shore. People think they are sea monsters but they always seem to turn out to be whale blubber.

I've been saying the same thing for eleven years now, and no one believes ME!

No, but they can become the basis to inquiry's that can obtain evidence. If people just dismissed things because "Tales aren't evidence" alot of archeologists would not know were to dig.

So I assume that means that Dark Matter can interact with other Dark Matter through means appart from gravity? Or is that just an uncertain guess?

I don't know what this is supposed to proove.... I am just interested in the results this poll will provide.

In order for that to work it would have to mean that time is two dimensional and subject to change, even natural change resulting from free will (if it exists) without time travil.

I wish that this education would put just a little emphasis on the fact that the issue of Global Warming is far from a certain one. There is a lot about atmosphere and climate science that is unknown or uncertain, but the issue it treated like we know exactly what is going on.

Yeah, is it a chemical or an exotic form of matter, plasma, solid, condensate,

I think I read somewhere that the Earth has a tail. Just not a very visible one. In science the best explanations, solutions, and definitions are simple, generalised and can be applied broadly. "A planet is any object massive enough to assume a roughly sphereical shape and orbits a star, however a planet cannot be a star." This seems simple and generalised enough. The thing is the whole thing about this new definition is they are not technically "fixing it" for Pluto. We already had a definition for planet when Pluto was discovered that Pluto apparently fit into. Seems more like someone tried to change the definition of planet to get rid of Pluto and failed, more so then someone trying to save Pluto in the face of harsh scientific scrutiny. Actually Sedna is a candidate for a planet that might very soon be defined as one, but you can't do these things all at once.

I just spoke with someone who has some experience with Chow. He described a dog that was half chow half german shepard. He described it as very muscuar, and moderatly agressive having a dislike of strangers. These facts would account for the animals appearence and reputation. I apologise if I made much adou about nothing. It seems that this is nothing more than a Chow mix.