bbrubaker

I know common knowledge is that there's absolutely NOTHING wrong with sex day in and day out but I still tend to feel like my flu symptoms get much worse after a seven or eight rounds of God-Like, Triathlon Sex.

But seriously, I really can't think of a reason for feeling crummier after sex than the somewhat lame reasoning that my testes are busy making more sperm and somehow this takes energy away from the processes that are trying to make me well again.

Also, I'm guessing there may be some bacteria exchanged that my body is fighting off.(?)

Or maybe it's just the afterglow...or whatever the opposite of afterglow is.

A sudden drop in Dopamine or something along those lines?

So:

Sex seems to make recovery from the flu last longer.

Anyone care to punch holes in this 'theory' for me?

Or provide a good link?

All I'm getting are profane articles from Cosmopolitan.

Thanks.

In the event of a natural disaster, or some other event that left you stranded without access to food.

 

Is there any one thing in the natural environment that you could live on for months on end?

 

Preying Mantuses? Grasshoppers? Sap/Zap from a tree?

 

Would it be logistically possible? ie: would you be able to find enough of the particular source of nutrition?

Would finding a bunch of dairy cows work?

Or a dairy cow?

You could tap some blood from them (occasionally) as well.

What if the AI just took one look around and unplugged itself?

I really like modern classical music with quite some mystique in it and sometimes just raw crying out of one's fears, sadness, and angers. Some names:

• John Tavener
  
• Arvo Pärt
  
• Henry Górecky
  
• Lili Boulanger
  

Thanks I just checked these out.

'Absolutely Beautiful' is pretty fitting.

I always enjoyed gifts which led to me getting laid. I think most scientists would tend to agree. I'm just saying... which birthday presents do YOU wind up remembering a decade later?

Well... a case of V.D. IS a gift you'll remember for decades to come.

I'm just sayin'!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090605123237.htm

"ScienceDaily (June 8, 2009) — Boys who carry a particular variation of the gene Monoamine oxidase A (MAOA), sometimes called the "warrior gene," are more likely not only to join gangs but also to be among the most violent members and to use weapons, according to a new study from The Florida State University that is the first to confirm an MAOA link specifically to gangs and guns."

I agree.

Also, I think we're doing a good enough job poisoning ourselves...not sure why we need to bring the aliens into this 'domestic issue'.

How do you know so much about jet fuel and aircraft and chemtrails?

'insane_alien'?

Hmm?

But seriously,

"No, no lead"

...is different than...

"the most commonly used aircraft fuels(A and A-1 jet fuel) doesn't contain lead"

Not that I'd doubt your obvious expertise here...

I was just curious why a government article seemed

to suggest that not all lead was banned in 'aircraft'.

That's all.

Your answer, 'that was 1996' ....didn't really supply enough information.

It's really not that important though.

Curiosity is my only ambition here.

Cheers.

So....you're saying that between 1996 and today (some kind of) aircraft stopped using cylinders?

Does evolution have 'stages'?

(I mean outside the human mind)

As far as I'm aware there are no sudden limbs on the tree of life...they all start out as sprigs.

And it's not as if life reaches a certain point and then decides to takes a breather and stop mutating, right?

Seems like there may be times when lots of diversification is allowed by the environment...

and then usually (inevitably?) pruned back... but I'm wondering if it's really 'correct' to say there are 'stages'.

Thanks.

'aliens on the internet'

That IS funny...I can just picture aliens trolling the net, playing a little internet chess, maybe wasting time on youtube when they're supposed to be planning the take over of the Earth.

'no lead/cylinders in jets'

How about smaller aircraft?

I wonder why this says 'aircraft'?

well, technically chemtrails ARE real, its just the chemical is water.

and...(wait for it...) LEAD!!!

But don't tell them that.

http://www.chemtrailagenda.com/

It's got it all doesn't it?

I'm not even going to cut and paste because the font and page style are 1/2 the bargain.

Priceless beauty.

Sometimes knowing how to ask the right question is 1/2 the battle.

Considering that lead accumulates in the body, how much is dangerous and where is it at?

I don't know.

If I did I wouldn't be asking.

I do know that airplanes, farm equipment and ATVs are still allowed to use leaded gas.

Everything else (in the US at least) has been outlawed since 1995.

All things being equal would higher levels of atmospheric lead have a negative consequence on overall mental function?

Maybe without atmospheric lead we'd have 6 points a decade?

Hope that makes it clearer.

Merged post follows:

...as the title I chose was a little misleading.

Sorry.

Merged post follows:

I'll take that silence as a 'yes'.

Pretty entertaining...not sure how educational...but entertaining.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Short_History_of_Nearly_Everything

I think there must be many, many different variables but still....other things being equal.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/09/980912112006.htm

Will Latin help me more (with scientific vocabulary) than Spanish, German, Arabic or Japanese?

Also, is it true that Latin is more of a written language as opposed to spoken?

And that, in general, I will have less spoken tests and interviews than Spanish or German?

Thanks,

BB

Has anyone read Seed Magazine?

I'm at a loss to imagine what kind of industry work someone with a PhD in

Biology (or Entomology. Etc.) could do.

I'm sure it'll be related to their field but can you give me a few examples of work

outside the lab that these people might fall into that still utilizes their PhD knowledge?

What is IIRC? What is a PI?

Also what field are you in Mokele? Zoology?

So if 75% end up in industry anyways why are people still trying for Academic careers?

Whats the advantage? A chance at tenure?

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/unemployed_scientists_prove_dog

So I'm cruising around the internet.... la dee dee da da... and I googled the words: How to become a scientist.

The first thing that popped up was this:

"Don't Become a Scientist!"

by Jonathan I. Katz

Professor of Physics

Washington University, St. Louis, Mo.

Which says in part:

...American science no longer offers a reasonable career path. If you go to graduate school in science it is in the expectation of spending your working life doing scientific research, using your ingenuity and curiosity to solve important and interesting problems. You will almost certainly be disappointed, probably when it is too late to choose another career.

 

American universities train roughly twice as many Ph.D.s as there are jobs for them. When something, or someone, is a glut on the market, the price drops. In the case of Ph.D. scientists, the reduction in price takes the form of many years spent in ``holding pattern'' postdoctoral jobs. Permanent jobs don't pay much less than they used to, but instead of obtaining a real job two years after the Ph.D. (as was typical 25 years ago) most young scientists spend five, ten, or more years as postdocs. They have no prospect of permanent employment and often must obtain a new postdoctoral position and move every two years. For many more details consult the Young Scientists' Network or read the account in the May, 2001 issue of the Washington Monthly...

 

 

 

...Suppose you do eventually obtain a permanent job, perhaps a tenured professorship. The struggle for a job is now replaced by a struggle for grant support, and again there is a glut of scientists. Now you spend your time writing proposals rather than doing research. Worse, because your proposals are judged by your competitors you cannot follow your curiosity, but must spend your effort and talents on anticipating and deflecting criticism rather than on solving the important scientific problems. They're not the same thing: you cannot put your past successes in a proposal, because they are finished work, and your new ideas, however original and clever, are still unproven. It is proverbial that original ideas are the kiss of death for a proposal; because they have not yet been proved to work (after all, that is what you are proposing to do) they can be, and will be, rated poorly. Having achieved the promised land, you find that it is not what you wanted after all...

(etc)

The whole thing can be found here:

http://wuphys.wustl.edu/~katz/scientist.html

What do you think?

Any truth in that article?

Any thing you current scientists want to tell me.... a possible future scientist?

Hmmm?