Posted: Wed May 06, 2009 11:03 pm
Is that a threat?Walkinghairball wrote:How many people would die if I was to quit smoking???
Ponder that.
Page 83 of 105
Posted: Thu May 07, 2009 4:26 am
So was I, homey.Xanadu wrote:I was just kiddingCygnusX1 wrote:I got a '37 Buick on cinderblocks next to the porch. GUILTY! hahahaXanadu wrote:redneck^ Have any old cars in there bro?
(((((Xanny)))))Posted: Thu May 07, 2009 7:34 am
You will when you are ready, bro. Not until. Then heads will ROLL!Walkinghairball wrote:How many people would die if I was to quit smoking???
Ponder that.
Posted: Thu May 07, 2009 7:45 am
Hahahahahahahahah!!!!!!!!!Raiden wrote:Is that a threat?Walkinghairball wrote:How many people would die if I was to quit smoking???
Ponder that.
Posted: Thu May 07, 2009 7:58 am
I agree. You have to want to quit. I enjoy a smoke like when I am taking a break from working on something, or with my morning coffee. I just am to the point that I hate it worse than I enjoy it.. BBO probably understands what I am talking about... just take your time fellas, when you are ready, you will.. and you will be sucessfull.Big Blue Owl wrote:You will when you are ready, bro. Not until. Then heads will ROLL!Walkinghairball wrote:How many people would die if I was to quit smoking???
Ponder that.
Posted: Thu May 07, 2009 8:42 am
I quit when I moved back to Los Angeles from Portland. The smog made it like doubling my smoking and I was at the point Soups is. He's right it is easier when yer ready.
Posted: Thu May 07, 2009 12:43 pm
I stopped for years when I fell pregnant with Jade...but then Cameron...and I started again...
Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 9:47 am
Were there Hobbits?
Studies say 'hobbit' previously unknown species
PARIS (AFP) ? The tiny ancient humans dubbed hobbits, whose remains were discovered on an Indonesian island in 2003, were a previously unknown species altogether, according to two new studies.
Debate has raged in the scientific community since the fossils were found on the island of Flores, with some experts insisting they were descended from Homo erectus and others saying evolution could not account for their small brains.
About a metre (three feet) tall and weighing 30 kilos (65 pounds), the tiny, tool-making hunters may have roamed the remote island as recently as 8,000 years ago. Their fossils are about 18,000 years old.
Many scientists have said Homo floresiensis, as the creature is now formally known, was a prehistoric human stunted by natural selection over millennia through a process called insular dwarfing.
Others countered that even this evolutionary shrinking, well documented in island-bound animals, could not account for the chimpanzee-sized brain -- just a third the size of that in a modern human being.
The only plausible explanation, they insisted, was that the handful of specimens found had a genetic disorder resulting in an abnormally small skull or that they suffered from "dwarf cretinism" caused by deficient thyroids.
Two new studies in the British journal Nature go a long way toward settling the debate.
A team led by William Jungers of Stony Brook University in New York tackled the problem by analysing the hobbit's foot.
In some ways it is very human. The big toe is aligned with the others and the joints make it possible to extend the toes as the body's full weight falls on the foot -- attributes not found in great apes.
But in other respects it is startlingly primitive: far longer than its modern human equivalent and equipped with a very small big toe, long and curved lateral toes, and a weight-bearing structure closer to a chimpanzee's.
Recent archaeological evidence from Kenya shows that the modern foot evolved more than 1.5 million years ago, most likely in Homo erectus.
So unless the Flores hobbits became more primitive over time -- considered extremely unlikely -- they must have branched off the human line at an even earlier date.
For Jungers and colleagues, this suggests their ancestor was not Homo erectus "but instead some other more primitive hominin whose dispersal into southeast Asia is still undocumented."
Companion studies published by the Journal of Human Evolution bolster this theory and conjecture that these more ancient forebears may be the still poorly understood Homo habilis.
In any case, Homo floresiensis would be confirmed as a separate species.
But what still has not been explained the hobbit's inordinately small brain.
That's where hippos come into the picture.
Eleanor Weston and Adrian Lister of the Natural History Museum in London compared fossils of several species of ancient hippos found on the island of Madagascar with the mainland ancestors from which they had evolved.
They were surprised to find that insular dwarfing -- driven by the need to adapt to an island environment -- shrank their brains far more than had previously been thought possible.
"Whatever the explanation for the tiny brain of H. floresiensis relative to its body size, our evidence suggests that insular dwarfing could have played a role in its evolution," they conclude.
While the new studies answer some questions, they also raise new ones sure to spark fresh debate, Harvard professor Daniel Lieberman said in Nature.
Only more fossil evidence will indicate whether the hobbits of Flores evolved from Homo erectus, whose traces have been found throughout Eurasia, or from an even more ancient lineage not yet found outside Africa, he said.
Studies say 'hobbit' previously unknown species
PARIS (AFP) ? The tiny ancient humans dubbed hobbits, whose remains were discovered on an Indonesian island in 2003, were a previously unknown species altogether, according to two new studies.
Debate has raged in the scientific community since the fossils were found on the island of Flores, with some experts insisting they were descended from Homo erectus and others saying evolution could not account for their small brains.
About a metre (three feet) tall and weighing 30 kilos (65 pounds), the tiny, tool-making hunters may have roamed the remote island as recently as 8,000 years ago. Their fossils are about 18,000 years old.
Many scientists have said Homo floresiensis, as the creature is now formally known, was a prehistoric human stunted by natural selection over millennia through a process called insular dwarfing.
Others countered that even this evolutionary shrinking, well documented in island-bound animals, could not account for the chimpanzee-sized brain -- just a third the size of that in a modern human being.
The only plausible explanation, they insisted, was that the handful of specimens found had a genetic disorder resulting in an abnormally small skull or that they suffered from "dwarf cretinism" caused by deficient thyroids.
Two new studies in the British journal Nature go a long way toward settling the debate.
A team led by William Jungers of Stony Brook University in New York tackled the problem by analysing the hobbit's foot.
In some ways it is very human. The big toe is aligned with the others and the joints make it possible to extend the toes as the body's full weight falls on the foot -- attributes not found in great apes.
But in other respects it is startlingly primitive: far longer than its modern human equivalent and equipped with a very small big toe, long and curved lateral toes, and a weight-bearing structure closer to a chimpanzee's.
Recent archaeological evidence from Kenya shows that the modern foot evolved more than 1.5 million years ago, most likely in Homo erectus.
So unless the Flores hobbits became more primitive over time -- considered extremely unlikely -- they must have branched off the human line at an even earlier date.
For Jungers and colleagues, this suggests their ancestor was not Homo erectus "but instead some other more primitive hominin whose dispersal into southeast Asia is still undocumented."
Companion studies published by the Journal of Human Evolution bolster this theory and conjecture that these more ancient forebears may be the still poorly understood Homo habilis.
In any case, Homo floresiensis would be confirmed as a separate species.
But what still has not been explained the hobbit's inordinately small brain.
That's where hippos come into the picture.
Eleanor Weston and Adrian Lister of the Natural History Museum in London compared fossils of several species of ancient hippos found on the island of Madagascar with the mainland ancestors from which they had evolved.
They were surprised to find that insular dwarfing -- driven by the need to adapt to an island environment -- shrank their brains far more than had previously been thought possible.
"Whatever the explanation for the tiny brain of H. floresiensis relative to its body size, our evidence suggests that insular dwarfing could have played a role in its evolution," they conclude.
While the new studies answer some questions, they also raise new ones sure to spark fresh debate, Harvard professor Daniel Lieberman said in Nature.
Only more fossil evidence will indicate whether the hobbits of Flores evolved from Homo erectus, whose traces have been found throughout Eurasia, or from an even more ancient lineage not yet found outside Africa, he said.
Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 10:16 am
He said Homo erectus... hee hee hee 
Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 10:26 am
Gee... all we needed was television for our brains to shrink.Big Blue Owl wrote: Eleanor Weston and Adrian Lister of the Natural History Museum in London compared fossils of several species of ancient hippos found on the island of Madagascar with the mainland ancestors from which they had evolved.
They were surprised to find that insular dwarfing -- driven by the need to adapt to an island environment -- shrank their brains far more than had previously been thought possible.
Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 10:26 am
Shhhhh!!! You'll alert Mr. Clean...or Richard Simmons!!!!
Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 10:53 am
<appears>Xanadu wrote:Shhhhh!!! You'll alert Mr. Clean...or Richard Simmons!!!!
Wrong thread. Damn Smoke and his bad directions.
<vanishes>
Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 11:22 am
^^^
Well alright! It's been a while!
heyheyhey - Watch where you're pointing that ice ray!
Well alright! It's been a while!
heyheyhey - Watch where you're pointing that ice ray!
Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 10:31 pm
LOL So much for serious discussion!
Posted: Sat May 09, 2009 2:41 am
I give better directions.
Anyway, here's something.
According to meteorologists, at any given time, Earth has multiple skies. If you're under partly cloudy skies, what's that? Some skies are cloudy and some are sunny? I want to go under this sky over here, there's a thunderstorm in it. The one next to it doesn't have a thunderstorm in it.
You're under ten skies. Some are cloudy and seven of them have thunderstorms in them. Therefore, you have a seventy percent chance of thunderstorms. It depends on whether or not the particular sky you're under has a thunderstorm in it...however big a sky is.
Anyway, here's something.
According to meteorologists, at any given time, Earth has multiple skies. If you're under partly cloudy skies, what's that? Some skies are cloudy and some are sunny? I want to go under this sky over here, there's a thunderstorm in it. The one next to it doesn't have a thunderstorm in it.
You're under ten skies. Some are cloudy and seven of them have thunderstorms in them. Therefore, you have a seventy percent chance of thunderstorms. It depends on whether or not the particular sky you're under has a thunderstorm in it...however big a sky is.