Continuing the practice of asking a quiz question before most articles. In doing so I am more sensitized to bad science, things I didn't know and more generally a confusing way of putting things that pads out the article.
The Finish survey on a Robot sex brothel is sensational but really doesn't access authentic information or trends.
The dance of European aviators to avoid the 2% load to the greenhouse budget is really the tip of the ice berg (in this case probably a melting one). My insight is that this is set to rise, but if you consider the scenario that the rest of the systems achieve a fall then we are in for an even greater percentage rise. The only solution I can see from a market driven problem is to increase the price.
The Spider Mum idea was simply too good a headline for the science. I think watching the baby spider die is so 19th century. Radio active tracers seem a pretty solid way to go if you can't actually see the spiders drinking the milk.
I wound up actually sorry for the researchers opening up the possibility of finger removal, the real story here is not the hand art but rather that the practice of finger amputation is so common, or perhaps not. I think the article is unnecessarily broad at the start saying that the art is common, yet in the next paragraph that it is confined to two caves.
The extragalactic gamma ray scattering of ancient photons raised with me the question on how could I have missed so much fundamental science. The answer is most likely that the key principle upon which the phenomena is based has simply been miss explained, which is deeply confusing for me.
MP4 recording MP3 recording
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your thoughts