dichotomy

I'll be putting in my e-bay order for that African bull elephant I've always wanted then! Those elephants have never killed anyone in my state. They have a clean record. And there are no bi-laws regulating them. Yippy! Well, maybe there are too many legal loop holes? Maybe they are poorly respected because they are so open to interpretation? Or maybe you are correct and the execution needs to be emphisised and practiced more reliably by law enforcers. They may need a once a year 'BLITZ' like they do with other laws. Blitzes are often very effective. Like that fu(king j-walking blitz that got me.

I'm not sure. But I think that may be the case. What I know is that Lion and Tiger males breeding with female ligers and tigons do produce fertile offspring of either sex. So it seems that it is possible. Can anyone else help here?

Are Tigers and Lions the same species if they can only produce fertile female offspring, but at the same time produce only infertile male offspring? I think if a species can produce fertile offspring then they are still the same species. Even if the only fertile offspring are either only male, or, only female. What does science think? labels are sometimes futile I suppose?

Originally Posted by iNow I think everyone's angst comes from the lack of enforcement of EXISTING laws. As you stated above, it maybe a lack of enforcement. If existing laws do not work then they do need to be toughened or modified to reduce dog attacks/fatalities. Nothing childish about that, and if it is seen as childish then children have a more solid logic than some adults. What would you do? And why would you want to respond in any other way except for a rational polite way? You'd be a politician and not a true scientist if you did. Come on you must have better bait than that?!

I should be able to own a bull african elephant if I wanted one. But, should I be allowed to? Where do we draw the line? We are reactive creatures like all others, we start drawing lines as permanent disabilities and death rates escalate to what we deem as unacceptable. What is unacceptable is a matter for each locality I suppose. For a start if laws can't be effectively enforced then a ban seems like the reasonable step to take until laws can be enforced. If a ban can't be enforced, then you have a real problem. Well, time will tell in Hobsons Bay if bans will do little. IMO, bans will greatly benefit children and small dogs playing in public parks for example. "in Victoria American pit bull terriers must be leashed and muzzled in public and cannot be taken outside an owner's premises by anyone under 17 years. Warning signs must be displayed at all entrances to premises where the dog is kept, and no more than two American pit bull terriers can be kept without council permission. Some councils impose even stricter rules. For example, Hobsons Bay has banned new registrations of American pit bull terriers and other restricted breeds." taken from - http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/HansArt.nsf/V3Key/LC20050504050

Honestly, my memory is only any good when I’m truly interested in what I’m learning. It's simple, but many people overlook this fact. Besides this and as mentioned, adequate rest, exercise and diet.

I assume this to be generally correct from evidence I have personally observed. Culture/training for a pup that is a couple of weeks old, is what really matters more often than not. Although, in suburban surrounds, I'd still much prefer a toy breed dog than one that had a bite like a bear trap! Yep. Dog with genetic large mass + snippy tendency + immature/nervous owner = high probability of big damage to someone in a short space of time. I did say tend to be immature and/or nervous. You are correct of course that this is not always the case. But in my experience it is the rule rather than the exception. I have watched the frequency of Pitbull, Pitbull crosses and related breeds drop off in popularity over the last 10 to 15 years. There where certainly more about in my general locality 10 years or so back. But the demographic has changed alot in that time aswell. So I'm still unsure if Pitbulls/crosses where a fashion trend or if more mature people have moved into my locality? That's right, "probably" and not "definitely". My evidence is formed from my personal observations, if I can find a large scale study that finds that human culture and canine conditioning are the primary reasons for an increase in dog attacks, then I'll post it.

I think the last I heard is that people do live longer, but the last 15 to 20 years of their extended lives are not healthier. They are generally in poor health, heavily medicated and inactive due to poor health. Science is keeping people alive longer, but their quality of life is very dubious.

I’m sure I heard that some physicians use a variation of this technique to treat Parkinson's disease, and I was right. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071025143321.htm I remember seeing a TV docu with this Parkinson's sufferer giving himself a portable battery pack jolt to the hypothalamus everytime he felt he wasn't functioning. He seemed to think it was the best solution he had tried.

I find this interesting. Would anyone know where Vermont is rated as far as dog attacks goes? I’m assuming here that low murder rates are to do with the local culture, and not the local gun laws. The average mental maturity of the population in Vermont maybe quite high, increasing their sense of personal responsibility for lethal weapons. I do think as a rule that Pit Bulls (in city areas) tend to be owned by immature and nervous types. So an owner’s culture probably is key to a higher frequency of dog fatalities.

OK, 32 percent of 800,000 would mean that the worst case scenario is something like 256,000 pitbull bites requiring medical treatment annually. This seems fairly unacceptable to me. Primarily because we have substantial control of our own bath and bathing habits, but we have little control of someone elses, out of control dog. Although, those lion's claw baths do scare me. I'll bet they are excellent for hunting wild pigs in an environment without humans present, excluding their owners of course! Like any tool, they need to be regulated so that they are used in their intended way. We could start asking why cats like tigers are not permitted to run around suburban backyards. Tigers have killed less people than pitbulls in suburbia, why not make them public domain? This is the only way to go. If you own an animal that kills, then you should be charged with manslaughter, or maybe even murder. Then one's reasoning would be amplified before choosing to buy a particular dog. err... lower rate of dog related deaths/injuies. Lower medical insurance premiums/costs. lower general anxiety when a dog that is larger than a fox terrier approaches

Also, what we haven't got is the number of things like - - disabilities and loss of limbs (to humans). - PTS disorders inflicted as a result of an attack on humans - injuries requiring surgery - minor injuries inflicted if there were 66 deaths, then it stands to reason that there must be many more attacks, and unreported attacks.

Or 3) as we expand, is this unknown space being completely consumed as energy for the expansion? If there is no expansion involved then space is just still infinite space, with bits within it that expand and move about, that give the impression of expansion. I do take Martin's point here as far as being practical and getting results goes: "developing our model does not NEED an outside, or a wall---and adding that to the picture doesn't contribute anything (to the conventional cosmology model)---so the overwhelming majority of people just ignore the idea. It doesn't play a role." Although, like the seamen of old, we would have to be wearing blinkers to not identify that there may be unknown "SEAS" out there. And that it is simply not within our current knowledge to identify it.

Yes, this is possible. If the question is - distances between galaxies and other cosmic bodies can increasing/decrease, I'd say true. If it's - galaxies can move about within space, I'd say true. If the question is - does visible space, in total, expand like a balloon without the need for an outside area, I'd say False.

No I can't, because I have never observed this happening, have you? I can imagine this if I am standing inside an expanding an invisible rubber balloon, observing the walls moving away from me with special glasses. But logic and experience tell my mind that outside of that balloon there must be space for the expansion to move into, even though I cannot see this whilst I'm inside of the balloon. So are you saying because we can't see outside of that balloon that there is no possibility of an outside existing? I can totally understand and visualise this. If there is expansion there must be a void space, or some other medium to either, a. expand into. b. push further away. c. consume If there is no expansion involved it is just still infinite space, with bits within it that expand and move, like solar systems and things getting sucked into blackholes.

Oh, I think this is absolutely true. You seem to be misunderstanding me. I just don’t agree with the below statement you made. That is except if it is purely a mathematical concept that has no claims to be able to be physically reconstructed, which I think is what you are claiming – "There is no outside to infinite 3D space, so it is impossible to visualize it expanding looked at from the outside. There are no boundaries moving outwards. The expansion is all within." IMO, expansion just doesn’t happen without available space to expand into, no matter how impossibly fast it is occurring. Therefore, infinite space is both still and infinite. Or, if expansion is physically occurring, it is the matter and energy that we know of, but not the stuff that matter/energy is immersed in ,dark matter, or whatever it turns out to be might be what known matter is expanding into. I think I'll stick with 3D space as being infinite and still, with lots of galaxies sprinkled about for colour... for now. Thanks mom!

They also often say, "I'm filling unwell today".

I was just using a ‘BOX’ as a simple example. It could be any amorphous 3D shape. A spherical object did cross my mind. Besides on a C.A.D program on my PC V.D.U, I can’t image space expanding from within, unless it has a without. If I look at simulated digital expanding space on my VDU, I’d look around the room that my VDU is located within and this would prove that the within space needs a without space to even exist. I say ‘beyond’ for the people who think the universe is a finite concept. Like there are walls at the end of it, or it’s a closed loop, or something mystical like that. If you are saying the universe is all there is, an infinite all, boundless, then I can understand and agree with this concept. Some people (backyard scientists ) seem to say that the universe is one type of 'blanket of matter' (with planets and stars, and known matter/energy, etc) and the stuff it expands into is another, as yet unknown, matter. And this I can also accept as a possibility. I can easily imagine the ‘star field simulation’ screen saver that most of us know, demonstrating infinite expanding space within a finite video monitor. But again, outside of the digital world of the monitor there is more space in the real world.

I think there are some useful studies of occupations and happiness/contentedness. From memory Dentists and Police where proportionately up there for the least happy. Gee, and I'd have thought being a cop would be pleasant!

I hope your boyfriend knows your plans! I don’t think she looks like any other Asian with brown photoshopped eyes; she just looks Eurasian to me. I might be because I live in a city where Eurasians are not really an uncommon sight? If the father is 100% Chinese maybe she’s just wearing coloured contact lenses?

If 3D space includes the universe and everything beyond it, I’d say true. 3D space is more likely to be infinite. It would be illogical if 3D space is a ‘box’ that is finite. I can believe an expanding ‘box’ that is expanding into something. I’d find it impossible to believe that there isn’t space outside of that ‘box’. If our Universe is one fixed finite box, then it is a box within a box, ad infinitum. If space is matter, then yes, matter in its various forms is infinite too.

Thanks for the clarification here. I'm not 100% convinced that DNA 'errors' are errors, although I accept that scientists have a much higher probability of being correct here than I of course. Regarding the Vit C production genes going missing. Is there absolutely no humans that have this ability?

I think I just misunderstood Paralith regarding what was so random about a rockfall. Of course now, I think she meant the timing of the event with the timing of the groups movement was what is random. So, timing is the random cause that wiped out advantageous alleles. Ok, is ‘the environment selects for mutation’, the same as saying, ‘the environment causes the random mutation selection to occur’? Again, I am back at the logic of the environment being the initial cause/trigger, and the ‘random’ (biological definition) mutation being the eventual outcome? And, for the paranoids, I'm not saying that the environment is GOD. The environment just IS. I understand and agree with all of this. Well, what it suggests is that more external changing pressures cause more rapid adaptation. Again, to a non-scientist like me, it seems to tell me that environmental pressures are the keys which trigger the advantageous mutations. There is no true, magical randomness here, there are enviro causes. What there is, are mutations that are either successful or unsuccessful for their space in time. And without successful adaptations, there is no life.

You would assume so. I'd also assume that flight 'architecture' would have started in the sea. By simply observing creatures like manta rays gliding through water, and of course those amazing flying fish. The first time I have heard about flying lemurs. And just a step off a flying monkey, damn. Lemurs do have that flying fox appearance about them.

Imagine no vaccines and treatments for cholera, polio, rubella, small pox, tuberculosis, just to name a few diseases. These alone would have saved countless lives. But if the vaccines eventually lead to a large scale fatal weakening of the immune systems of the species, then they will be seen as things that cost lives. Mutually assured nuclear destruction, IMO, is still the best life saver in science. Sad but true.