Homemade 'Mars In a Bottle' Tortures Bacteria 154
astroengine writes "The only time we've ever directly looked for life on Mars was during the 1970s, when NASA's Viking landers attempted to make direct measurements of Martian microbes metabolizing. Even today, the results of these groundbreaking experiments are hotly debated. Although the Viking experiments were often considered premature, a team of scientists hope to refine the next life-searching experiment to be sent to the Red Planet by building a Mars habitat on Earth. Imagine a Mars environment 'goldfish bowl' complete with UV radiation, dust, chilly temperatures, and an extremely low atmospheric pressure. So what have they done with this micro-Mars environment? They've been torturing various terrestrial microbes to see how they enjoy stints on the Martian surface. Their results have shown that even Earth microorganisms have a trick or two up their sleeves to survive in this alien environment."
Animal torture (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cuddly, furry ones. And trouser snakes.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, that explains why my petition to save the Australian blobfish [telegraph.co.uk] was turned down!
Re:Animal torture (Score:4, Interesting)
As a vegan pinko hippie who loves you all, this one has been weighing on my mind recently. My partner (who is omnivorous, but supports cruelty-free farming) decided to get some live mealworms a few days ago to breed and feed to the birds, explaining that the cat has been quite the bird assassin the past few months and this may help strengthen up the population.
While there's certainly no intention to "torture" the mealworms, just give them comfortable living conditions until they are put out where birds are likely to eat them, there's still the issue of sending little creatures to their death. Do I worry about it less because it's a worm and not a lamb? Or a dog?
(I have this image now of that strip where two guys are discussing some problem on the golf course and a black guy appears and says, "Is this the sort of problem white people have?" Really, I'm very grateful that I'm in a position where I can worry about stuff like this, although we have significant health difficulties in the family so it's by far my greatest worry... life's weird...)
Re: (Score:2)
As the omnivorous partner of a vegetarian, I've always argued that it's clearly got to do with mental capacity. Some animals (actually most, because most are wormy type things and insects) just don't have the mental capacity to be worth moral consideration in and of themselves in my opinion. Clearly there's a grade--we should consider our treatment of dogs more carefully than flies, for example. I see this as hard to deny, even if we are uncomfortable with its ramifications for humans (are stupid people les
Re: (Score:2)
I've always argued that it's clearly got to do with mental capacity.
The more like us something seems, the less we want to harm it. A worm is about as far away as you can get - they are repulsive looking and superficially resemble us in no way. Dogs are the other extreme - they have co-evolved with us such that they present behavior that seems like human emotion. So we put dogs on a higher pedestal than any other animal - even our 98% similar chimp cousins.
Sometimes a weird accident of genetics produces something that is not much different from a regular fish, but has some f
Re: (Score:2)
I recognize all of the rights of mealworms which they fought and secured for themselves by defeating the British.
That is to say, none.
When they make a convicing argument that they have rights and when they are able to assert themselves to that end, I'll listen.
The reason I don't _personally_ torture animals that appear to have more in common with me than other life (like the grass in my yard, which i mow with reluctant impunity) is because I don't feel good doing it, and the Tale of the Jewish Zombie (aka t
Re: (Score:2)
I recognize all of the rights of mealworms which they fought and secured for themselves by defeating the British. [...] When they make a convicing argument that they have rights and when they are able to assert themselves to that end, I'll listen.
It's going to be a tough time for babies and the seriously retarded. Unless you think that what one human does determines prae judicio what another unrelated human (but only human) deserves. Though you already admit to being speciesist.
The [only proper] purpose of government is to allegedly protect the rights of [human] individuals
It's one of many opinions on the matter, yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's one clear opinion, certainly. And everything you say applies to people. What's more, on a universal scale we're just seven billion tiny sacks of dirty water rolling about on an irrelevant ball of inorganic molecules orbiting an inconsequential sphere of hydrogen and helium in an unspectacular galaxy in an indifferent universe. I mean, seriously:
We are just fucking humans.
Don't be a slave to your perception of nature. I'm as much part of nature as you, your dog, and my partner's mealworms. If I
Re:Animal torture (Score:5, Insightful)
The same question is asked of everyone who raises an ethical or philosophical question before its time.
"There's no divine right of kings." What the fuck is wrong with you?
"Blacks are people too." What the fuck is wrong with you?
"Class isn't a birthright." What the fuck is wrong with you?
"Chimpanzees have behaviour suggesting very human-like emotion and intelligence." What the fuck is wrong with you?
"Dogs may not be as bright as humans, but they have capacity for pain and suffering which must be taken into account." What the fuck is wrong with you?
"Much simpler organisms appear to react to stimuli we'd regard as painful in a similar way to us - do they feel pain too?" What the fuck is wrong with you?
"Or should we judge a species' worthiness to life by its intelligence rather than its perceived pain responses? If so, why shouldn't we judge humans similarly?" What the fuck is wrong with you?
I'm allowed to think about the questions. I'm not imposing any conclusion on anyone - I haven't even made one yet. Maybe I never shall, but in the meanwhile I retain an open mind. Does this worry you? Do you want me to angrily tell you that you're a murderer if you swat flies? Are you simply annoyed that I think about these sorts of things rather than whatever you like to think about?
What stereotype would you like me to conform to in order to reinforce your beliefs about those who disagree with you?
(in b4 ybht)
Re: (Score:3)
I think what the most eloquent AC was trying to say is that predation is entirely part of nature - animals eat other animals all the time - so it makes no sense to worry about it. Those little mealworms are, by being eaten, fulfilling their manifest destiny as part of the chain of life, and you should send them on their way knowing that you have only helped them do what they exist to do in the first place. Possibly the AC's version was more succinct though ;).
Re:Animal torture (Score:4)
You're certainly right that it's nature's way, but the question mark appears when I'm making a conscious decision to have a hand in the process. The fox which digs a hole which exposes the worm and the bird which takes the worm don't really have the capacity to make a choice. I do have a choice to help the birds, or help the worms, or leave everything alone, or give some balanced input to offset the tremendous impact my modern lifestyle is having.
The Duke of Edinburgh, bless his privileged socks, fairly effectively summarised two different approaches in a recent interview [bbc.co.uk]: you can be an conservationist, concerning yourself at a species level with extinction and other large-scale changes; or you can be a "bunny hugger", worrying too much about the plight of some random donkey. I'd like not to lose sight of the wood for the trees without losing the compassion of the latter sort.
Re: (Score:2)
"The fox which digs a hole which exposes the worm and the bird which takes the worm don't really have the capacity to make a choice."
If you'd spent anytime observing birds and bird behavior, you'd know that some birds very well have the capacity to make a choice. Humans aren't the only animals on the planet that kill other members of their own species or members of other species just for the sake of killing or territory.
I have an older (16 year old) Green Iguana who understands the concept of glass and door
Re: (Score:2)
It depends how you define "choice", obviously. I can make a careful and informed rational choice. I don't think the bird can. I don't think your iguana can. Maybe we'll learn that these creatures are way smarter and more insightful in the reasoning behind the choices they make. It doesn't matter, really - what matters from my PoV is that I know I am capable of making such a choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Your careful and informed rational choice is still based on primitive emotions that you can't control.
What's the rational reason killing is bad in the first place ? I can only think of one: killing is bad if it negatively affects your own survival. Feel free to come up with others (just make sure they are rational).
Re: (Score:2)
I can only think of one: killing is bad if it negatively affects your own survival.
I'll have to stop you there. Why is my own survival rationally important? I'm not disagreeing, but I would like to know your answer - in particular, I want to make sure that your answer isn't begging the question with something like "because nature is about [genetic] survival".
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't say it was rationally important. It's just the fundamental thing that drives all living species, including determining every action they take (directly or indirectly). In other words, if you didn't think your survival mattered, you might as well end it right now.
Re: (Score:2)
You're deliberately choosing a different sort of question which only requires a more primitive thought process. Experiencing empathy and pondering high and low level decisions you could make when presented with the option to cause or not cause damage to strangers is not the same as judging the best route from A to B while avoiding C. Even then, the level of input and processing an iguana can put into route optimisation is far exceeded by the level of input a human can put.
I have no doubt that many species c
Re: (Score:2)
There's another post in this thread which covers the false dichotomy you're generating.
Re: (Score:2)
Like I said, feel free to come up with a better rational reason. After all, without some axioms ("my survival is good for me"), it's impossible to create any meaningful rational framework at all.
Re: (Score:2)
So we've gone from reason to axiom.
OK.
Now is what is "good for you", good?
Although, TBH, I'm not that interested in this sort of argument, because there's so much cookie-cutter work to move on from your oft-heard pronouncement to productive debate.
There's lots of work scrawled about veganism and animal rights which come down to weighing minimisation of exploitation (in the widest sense, of nature in general including other humans) against causing yourself excessive hardship. Sometimes there's an underlying
Re: (Score:2)
There is no absolute good or bad. The question whether something is absolutely good is therefore pointless.
Why is "minimization of exploitation" good ? And even if we assume it's good, it still doesn't tell us much. For instance, we could minimize the exploitation of whales by killing every single one them, therefore reducing the sum of their future exploitation to zero. If we do it swiftly, they won't even suffer.
They're going to all die anyway, and natural deaths aren't usually pretty.
Re: (Score:2)
For instance, we could minimize the exploitation of whales by killing every single one them
If you've ever had the misfortune of looking into PETA (or, worse, working with people in PETA *shudder*), you'll hear its adherents say things like that - not only of animals which are hunted or farmed but also of pets. "Every dog is better off being put to sleep than living or having lived as a companion slave!" This was one of the main reasons I suggested avoiding them, except to see how far away from reasonable you can travel without actually going around killing people.
Do you not see how killing an ani
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt they'll give a rational reason why killing animals is bad. All they offer is a simple appeal to emotions. We hate to see animals suffer because of our mirror neurons. Seeing someone suffer, makes us feel the pain, and that's unpleasant, so we try to stop it.
Re: (Score:2)
The fox which digs a hole which exposes the worm and the bird which takes the worm don't really have the capacity to make a choice.
Now you're contradicting what you said before [slashdot.org]: "Much simpler organisms appear to react to stimuli we'd regard as painful in a similar way to us - do they feel pain too?"
If the fox reacts in a similar way to us, couldn't it follow a similar reasoning process, therefore taking conscious choices?
I think there's no definite point at which we can say for sure there's no self-consciousness below it. However, the simple fact that an organism reacts to stimuli is not enough to call it conscious or assume it follows
Re: (Score:2)
If the fox reacts in a similar way to us, couldn't it follow a similar reasoning process, therefore taking conscious choices?
It could. But it's a huge leap to assume that it reasons like us in general just because it reacts like us to specific immediate stimulus.
A light switch reacts to the pressure of my finger by turning on a light, does that mean we should never harm light switches?
Why is it a habit of geeks to make horribly over-simplifying analogies? :-/ Oh well, I'm sure I've been guilty of it too from time to time. The question I gave was about simpler organisms which appear to react to stimuli we'd regard as painful in a similar way to us. Light switches do not react like this.
If you were to build a robot which acted in a manner indistinguishab
Re: (Score:2)
If you were to build a robot which acted in a manner indistinguishable from a fox, then - as many have argued in many places - there is a good case for looking at it from an ethical PoV as if it were a fox. The ultimate AI achievement of building an AI indistinguishable from a human would result in regarding the AI from an ethical PoV as if it were human.
This reminds me of a part of the book 'The Tin Men', where a researcher is building ethical robots and putting them on rafts in a swimming pool with other robots, to see if they will throw the other off to save themselves.
Worms may feel pain - even plants might - but they can't reason about that well enough to truly suffer. Therefore, feeding them to birds is not a moral issue. It's like when people say "meat is murder!" and imagine that simply redefining "killing humans" as "killing animals" makes any kind
Re: (Score:2)
Brain scan testing and other tests have shown that dogs have far higher stress levels than their wild counterparts - not fear stress, worry.
Dogs have been shown to have a sense of time, a sense of themselves as being within time - and a sense of belonging and self. Wolves and foxes don't - but wolves and foxes raised in captivity do.
In one set of tests it was shown how "solve the puzzle" behavior could be triggered in some species of shrimp, remove the puzzle and the shrimp who had come to "enjoy" it - woul
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need to give balanced input because you don't need to seek balance in everything, nature is not balanced
So you're saying that I need to be a slave to your perception of nature?
It's natural for the early bird to eat the unearthed worm. And it's just as natural for me, the human, to contemplate on it and wonder whether I should act like the bird or behave differently.
Re: (Score:2)
"I honestly don't understand the belief system which posits humans are not only not animals, but are somehow worse than animals, and that animals are all wholesome and pure, with winning personalities to boot."
I blame Disney. And the Bible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>The same question is asked of everyone who raises an ethical or philosophical question before its time.
Unfortunately - it's also the same question we ask of people who are batshit insane and/or just plain wrong.
Now what are the odds you are in the former category ? Slim to none.
That said you can hugely improve those odds if (like everything in your list of examples) the arguments in favor of your suggestion are logically strong, and the arguments against them (e.g. in favor of the status quo) are logica
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are a few incidents of torture (assuming mosquitoes so experience it) resulting in death better than mass execution? What if the mass execution has a life-affirming purpose, e.g. to save humans and livestock from malaria?
What about the knock-on effect of promotion of torture?
Re: (Score:2)
What if the mass execution has a life-affirming purpose, e.g. to save humans and livestock from malaria?
So if it's about improving the quality of life for humans and animals humans care about, its okay? What if the booth also was about improving the quality of life for some humans?
Re: (Score:2)
So if it's about improving the quality of life for humans and animals humans care about, its okay?
It's not black and white, is it? Consider: experiments on animals for lifesaving medication, carefully designed to minimise use of animals and to minimise suffering of those animals, is considered acceptable by many. But this does not preclude considering animal testing of cosmetics unacceptable - indeed, the EU imposed a testing ban in 2009.
One of the traditional anti-animal-rights strawmen is to claim that all vegans/animal rights activists/etc want no harm whatever to be caused to any living organism by
Re: (Score:2)
One of the traditional anti-animal-rights strawmen is to claim that all vegans/animal rights activists/etc want no harm whatever to be caused to any living organism by any human.
I've seen some resort to the appeal to hypocrisy fallacy by claiming that because animal rights activists typically harm plants, they are hypocrites (and therefore no one should listen to them).
not least because it is psychologically damaging to the torturer
What? If he finds it fun and enjoys it, then claiming that he's "evil" or that he "needs help" isn't going to change that (and I highly doubt that absolute morals exist in the first place).
In addition, the end does not justify the means.
That depends on who you ask.
Re: (Score:2)
(and I highly doubt that absolute morals exist in the first place)
Reminds of a Terry Pratchett quote [gaiam.com], a conversation between Death and his granddaughter (sort of), Susan:
'All right,' said Susan. 'I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... fantasies to make life bearable."
"REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE"
'Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little- "
"YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES"
'So we can believe the big ones?"
"YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING"
'They're not the same at all!"
"YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET-- "
Death waved a hand. "AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME... SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED"
'Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point---"
"MY POINT EXACTLY"
Re: (Score:2)
"For every 1 man you kill we'll donate $1,000,000 to save a thousand from starvation."
Do I get to choose the guy?
Re: (Score:2)
Any animals kills if it helps its own survival. We are no exception. The question if this is okay is pointless.
Re: (Score:2)
Any animals kills if it helps its own survival.
And just because it happens in nature or everything does it, that does not mean that it is 'okay' (not sure if that is even what you meant). However, I don't think that this must be true. Why couldn't something refuse to do so?
The question if this is okay is pointless.
To you, perhaps.
Re: (Score:2)
Evolution. Genes that do not maximize chances of survival get replaced by genes that do.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, still, it isn't impossible to make that choice. You may die, but the choice was still made.
Re: (Score:2)
You're criminalising behaviour because it makes you feel icky.
Intent is often the most important facet of a law. Take manslaughter/murder. A serial killer with 20 victims will get a life sentence or be executed. A bus driver who falls asleep at the wheel can kill the same number of people and get a few years in prison.
Another example would be taxes. If you make a mistake and short the government money on your taxes, they will demand repayment and fine you. If you deliberately evade the same amount in taxes, you go to jail. Either way, the effect is the same - but you
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, angling's a toughie. It seems to be inflicting unnecessary suffering and possibly quite damaging trauma on the fish, although it's certainly not torture for its own sake.
I guess the best approach today is to promote equipment which minimises harm to the fish. This applies to fishing in general, of course - unregulated drift netting, for example, is in the long term wrong on every count.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So where do you draw the line?
Re: (Score:2)
Mutations (Score:2)
Torture? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
To some bacteria (and similar kingdoms) free oxygen in the atmosphere is toxic and so our current environment is torture ...
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine the daily torture of oxygene and water the humans have to endure. Each day to live to just live one day less.
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose you never clean anything either. Imagine torturing those poor bacteria with soap.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, bacteria are prokaryotes, so it's outside PETA's bailiwick.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, we need to expand our horizons and not be so kingdomcentric.
Instead of just PETA, we should have: ...although watching some people try to chain themselves to some mushrooms, or (b
People for the Ethical Treatment of Bacteria (PEToB)
People for the Ethical Treatment of Archaea (uh oh, maybe PEToA, that's probably going to confuse the mailing list...)
People for the Ethical Treatment of Protista (PEToP)
People for the Ethical Treatment of Plantae (PEToPL?)
People for the Ethical Treatment of Fungi (PEToF)
Thanks KSR (Score:4, Informative)
Kim Stanley Robinson wrote about "Mars Bottles" in his Mars Trilogy 20 years ago. I'm glad someone is finally trying it!
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, the "Mars Jars" were in a lab... ON MARS
Hilarity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I read about the first "Mars Bottles" being built and used by NASA nearly 40 years ago.
(Creaky first-cup-of-coffee synapses send me off to my bookshelves...)
The earliest published reference to "Mars Jars" (the actual term Robinson used) I could find in a quick search of my hardcopy collection is from 1972. A brief Google search turns up Carl Sagan using "Mars Jars [google.com]" in the
Re: (Score:2)
I remember reading about lab experiments with "Mars chambers" about that long ago. As soon as people had an idea of the composition and density of Mars' atmosphere, it's a fairly obvious experiment.
Pictures (Score:4, Funny)
http://i.imgur.com/WRO02.jpg [imgur.com] [SFW - not goatse]
Enjoy.
Re: (Score:2)
So why would we believe you?
In the name of safety for everyone's mind, I courageously checked the link. He is right, it isn't Goatse.
Well, not exactly - it's someone who's just seen Goatse.
Cabon Dioxide? (Score:2)
don't you mean (Score:3)
If I could keep Mars in a Bottle (Score:2)
Is torture my cold 'til it passes away
So I can no longer pass it to you!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Contamination (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the Viking probes and all that other shit we threw at the planet already did. You can't get them microbe-less once the components are exposed to air, some spores will survive.
There was some controversy that the activity seen in the Martian soil by the Vikings was due to terrestrial contamination (or the chemical activity of the soil), so the soil tests were deemed inconclusive (Gas Release was negative, along with Gas Chromatograph/Mass Spectrometer readings, and pyrolitic release. The only positive was labeled release, which may have been due to inorganic reactions), and most scientists do not accept them as proof of life.
Re: (Score:3)
I know some spores and microbes can survive the harsh conditions of space for a while, but what are the chances that those particularly tough critturs were the ones the Mars landers were contaminated with?
Re:Contamination (Score:4)
100%.
Those fuckers can survive damn near anything, and they're omnipresent (the archeobacteria and other extremophiles present around geothermal vents, in deep drill-cores, and all those other places aren't the only indestructible microbes). The law of large numbers practically requires them to have been on the landers.
Re: (Score:2)
All probes have been sterilized, so 0%. If you don't trust the sterilization, both our numbers are speculation.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. That didn't happen until later. NASA freely admits their old procedures left gaps. They've later confirmed its extremely likely some bugs got at least as far as the space voyage there. As we can't physically check on the far end, it is technically possible none arrived on Mars but the chances of such are a very, very long bet.
Of course modern procedures are far more efficient and effective.
Re: (Score:2)
Weren't there fungi growing on the *outside* of the windows of MIR at one point ? I seem to remember something like that being in the news.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, it was growing on the *inside*. Outside would be stunning, inside is interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
Hold still. There's one on your eyeball.
Re: (Score:3)
In spore/inactive form, some of the hardier microcritters won't even blink at truly alarming temperature excursions, stints in hard vacuum with a side of radiation, or potentially years to centuries of storage under martian conditions. However, they won't actually do anything until somebody takes them inside and gives them something closer to the weather they actually like.
Such a contamination
Re: (Score:2)
My pet hypothesis is that Mars was contaminated by Earth millions of years ago. Thinking about it, we have this planet that's down-solar-wind of our planet, catching the microbes whisked away from our upper atmosphere and into outer orbits... like when Earth passes through the remnants of a comet's path, creating meteor showers for hundreds of years afterwards every time we pass through that region of space. There was a story about Russia planning a space probe to Mars' orbit and back, loaded with microbes [scientificamerican.com],
Re: (Score:2)
You mean ... the Lifestream? :)
Seriously, while we should strive to protect this planet (it's the only one we've got, so far. And the only place with beer!), we should also be looking towards other planets, with a colonial eye. The only way forward is up, and off this rock.
Let me quote myself, from the prologue and epilogue of my thesis:
"Space is the final frontier(1). After Humanity has conquered the seas and the sky, there will be no other choices for expansion, than out: breaking free from the planet, an
Re: (Score:2)
Jesus wept.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you surprised?
After all, Jesus died on the cross for our sins.
Worse, being omniscient, he's actually read the whole thesis.
Re: (Score:2)
Worse, being omniscient, he's actually read the whole thesis.
Ah, the old question posed in The Tragedy of Man, scene 7: was Jesus and God one and the same, or just fundamentally the same? If just fundamentally, omniscience may not apply.
But let's not stray from the topic at hand!
Re: (Score:2)
Would you want your kid knowing everything you know?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, what, "contaminate"? You're anti-life?
Literally worse than Hitler. In the literal sense of literally.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and look up words in a dictionary before you use them. Unless there's intelligent life on Mars, it isn't genocide.
Unless it's the planned, premeditated destruction of an ethnic or racial group, with the expressed intention of utter and complete eradication, it's not genocide. Legally speaking.
Although I'd love to see the Hague tackle 'Negligent Genocide', or similar. Maybe someone read a scroll of genocide, thinking it was some recipe?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe someone read a scroll of genocide, thinking it was some recipe?
Or maybe they thought it was a cursed scroll of genocide, which would merely send in a few instances of the race in question -- "reverse genocide", as it were ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Xenocide according to Orson Scott Card.
Hello Godwin!!! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
News for ya: if bacteria survives as implied by the article, Mars was likely contaminated long ago even before humans started space explorations. Most likely by a comet bashing into things.
Re: (Score:2)
Target audience.
Re:wholesale designer lv luxury handbags on sale (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I still don't understand how Slashdot has not been inundated with spammers long before now. Taco must have some kind of secret, but what is it?
Maybe Spammers simply know that no-one here is going to buy anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hah. Perhaps AGW itself is a cunning long-term plan to breed especially heat-resistant humans?
(Also : fantastic sig. Just finished "I Shall Wear Midnight". I think Blair could do wi' a gud kicking from the Wee Free Men...)
Re: (Score:2)
Says the prolific AC, taking time from his busy schedule to post a random thought on a news aggregation site.