What the Boys in Blue have to put up with

This video shows some of the insane crap that law enforcement has to put up with.

These are some sweet T-shirts

I'd wear most of these.

Don't bother making a pligrimage to the "Bosnian Pyramids"

The "Bosnian Pyramids" are not pyramids at all, but a hoax, intended to draw dollars from a naive public. Don't believe claims that thay are remnants from Europe's oldest civilization that predates the Egyptian pyramids, and certainly don't book any flights to Bosnia-Herzigovina any time soon.

From this source:

Bosnian pyramids refers to a site known as Visočica hill (or Grad hill), in the Bosnia and Herzegovina town of Visoko, northwest of Sarajevo, which became the focus of international attention in October 2005, following a news-media campaign promoting the false idea that it is actually the largest of a group of ancient man-made pyramids, the so-called Bosnian pyramids.

Scientific investigations of the site show there is no pyramid.^[1][2][3] Additionally, scientists have criticised the Bosnian authorities for supporting the pyramid claim saying, "This scheme is a cruel hoax on an unsuspecting public and has no place in the world of genuine science."^[4]

The 213 metre Visočica hill, upon which the Old town of Visoki was once sited, is roughly pyramid-shaped. The idea that it constitutes an ancient artificial edifice was publicised by Houston-based expatriate Bosnian author and metalworker Semir Osmanagić, whose subsequent excavations at the site have uncovered what he claims to be a paved entrance plateau and tunnels, as well as stone blocks and ancient mortar which he has suggested once covered the structure. Osmanagić has claimed that the dig involved an international team of archaeologists from Australia, Austria, Bosnia, Scotland and Slovenia.^[5] However, many archaeologists he named have stated they had not agreed to participate and were never at the site.^[6] The dig began in April 2006.

Expert interpretations

Semir Osmanagić's claims, widely reported in the mass media, have been challenged by a number of experts, who have accused him of promoting pseudo-scientific notions and damaging archaeological sites with his excavations. Penn State University Professor Garrett Fagan is quoted as saying "They should not be allowed to destroy genuine sites in the pursuit of these delusions[...] It’s as if someone were given permission to bulldoze Stonehenge to find secret chambers of lost ancient wisdom underneath."^[7]

Boston University's Curtis Runnels, an expert in prehistoric Greece and the Balkans states that, "Between 27,000 and 12,000 years ago, the Balkans were locked in the last Glacial maximum, a period of very cold and dry climate with glaciers in some of the mountain ranges. The only occupants were Upper Paleolithic hunters and gatherers who left behind open-air camp sites and traces of occupation in caves. These remains consist of simple stone tools, hearths, and remains of animals and plants that were consumed for food. These people did not have the tools or skills to engage in the construction of monumental architecture."^[8]

Enver Imamovic of the University of Sarajevo, a former director of the National Museum of Sarajevo, concerned that the excavations will damage historic sites such as the medieval royal capital Visoki, said that the excavations would "irreversibly destroy a national treasure".^[9] Excavations by archaeologists not related to the Foundation in the summer of 2008 uncovered medieval artefacts and led to renewed calls for the government to cancel Osmanagić's digging permits.^[10]

In a letter to the editor of The Times on 25 April 2006, Professor Anthony Harding, president of the European Association of Archaeologists, referred to Osmanagić's theories as "wacky" and "absurd" and expressed concern that insufficient safeguards were in place to protect Bosnia's "rich heritage" from "looting and unmonitored or unauthorised development".^[11] After visiting the site himself, Harding reported, "...we saw areas of natural stone (a breccia), with fissures and cracks; but no sign of anything that looked like archaeology."^[2]

According to one source, on May 8, 2006, members of the Geological team investigating Visočica on behalf of the Archaeological Park: Bosnian Pyramid of the Sun Foundation held a press conference in Tuzla to present the results of their research. The academics, from the Faculty of Mining and Geology^[12] at the University of Tuzla^[13] and led by Professor Dr. Sejfudin Vrabac,^[14] concluded that the hill is a natural geological formation, made of classic sediments of layered composition and varying thickness, and that its shape is a consequence of endodynamical and exodynamical processes in post-Miocene era.

According to Professor Vrabac, who specializes in paleogeology, there are dozens of like morphological formations in the Sarajevo-Zenica mining basin alone. The Geological team report on Visocica, based on the data collected in six drill holes at 3 to 17 metre depths, is supported by the Research and Teaching Council of the Faculty of Mining and Geology, as well as the Association of Geologists of Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.^[15]

In June 2006, Zahi Hawass's name became linked to the excavations^[16] as recommending an expert, Aly Abd Alla Barakat, to investigate the hills. Upon being contacted Hawass denied any involvement, accusing Osmanagić of "giving out false information".^[17]

The Archaeological Park: Bosnian Pyramid of the Sun Foundation has said that Barakat inspected the hills and stated, "My opinion is that this is a type of pyramid, probably a primitive pyramid."^[6][18] In November 2007 an English version of a 2006 report by Barakat was posted on the foundation site. ^[19] Osmanagić also invited geologist and alternative archaeologist Robert Schoch to visit the site. In a preliminary report he concluded that there were natural geological explanations for all the features claimed to be artificial by Osmanagić. In the case of the tunnels he further added:

The much-touted “ancient inscriptions” seem not to be ancient at all. I was told by a reliable source that the inscriptions were not there when members of the “pyramid team” initially entered the tunnels less than two years ago. The “ancient inscriptions” had been added since, perhaps non-maliciously, or perhaps as a downright hoax.^[20]

The foundation has described such comments as "ill-intentioned" referring to "irrelevant and completely incorrect facts".^[21] In return Dr Schoch's website documents "extreme damage being done by the way the excavations are being performed," and accuses Osmanagić of launching "a deliberate smear campaign."^[22]

Two of the archaeologists who worked as volunteers in 2006 are Silvana Cobanov and Nancy Gallou. In an article in BIH Dani magazine, ^[23] you can find an email from Silvana Cobanov (who was said to be supervising the archaeological work) to the members of the Board of Directors of Osmanagic's foundation which says in part: "It is difficult to admit, first for myself and then to the others, that I have been doing the figurehead on the terrain. The works on Pljesevica were conducted by Goran Cakic (a graduate mechanical engineer). My efforts to change this have been unsuccessful. To my regret, I have contacted orally several times the project manager, discussed with Goran Cakic, cautioned him that he should write his observations and conclusions in his private diary, categorically protested that Amir Susa Zombi[a man employed by the Foundation who seems to be more or less in charge of everything, and particularly the security] may not and should not plot, dig and excavate a little bit here and a little bit there (and this literally as it seems)..." While she was working there a rectangular construction was unearthed at the base of one of the alleged pyramids. Silvane Cobanov in her parting email informed Osmanagic about what it really was; a recent construction with "dry walls, very unstable". The evidence for this are the bricks of which it is made, and the nails, also recent. "I have protested that one should not talk about a tomb, or entry to the pyramid, or a military post... to say to the visitors such unfounded suppositions is in my opinion dishonest. So, to conclude: on Pljesevica we didn't find a single archaeological artifact, and it is, in my opinion, sterile in the archeological sense."

[edit] Osmanagić's interpretation

Osmanagić has named Visočica hill the "Pyramid of the Sun", while two nearby hills, identified from satellite and aerial photography, have been dubbed the "Pyramid of the Moon" and the "Pyramid of the (Bosnian) Dragon" (and another two, one named the "Pyramid of the Earth", have been mentioned in reports). Newspaper reports have quoted Osmanagić as claiming that they were constructed by ancient Illyrian inhabitants of the Balkans as early as 12,000 BC. But in an interview with Philip Coppens in Nexus (April-May 2006), Osmanagić attempted to clarify his previous statements, stating he was misquoted: he does claim that they were most likely constructed by the Illyrians, who he claims lived in the area from 12,000 BC to 500 BC, and that the pyramid was therefore most likely constructed between those two dates - not in 12,000 BC.

Osmanagić claims the excavation has produced evidence of building blocks as well as tunnels. Earlier geological work has also indicated that human activity had shaped the hill.^[24] Additionally Osmanagić has found tunnels in the hillside which he interprets as ventilation shafts.

Osmanagić believes his discoveries around Visoko will have further implications for world prehistory. By comparing the varying heights of the tallest pyramids in Mexico and Egypt with Visočica hill, he concluded that the pyramids may all have been built by the same people(s), with the Bosnian Pyramid being the last to be built. However, upon further thought he has decided that this dating mechanism may not be reliable and has now announced Visočica hill could be "The mother of all Pyramids", a claim he says would be corroborated by the existence of sacred geometry and further numerological study of messages left in the pyramid for future generations.^[25]

Osmanagić estimates that the Sun pyramid stands 722 feet (220m) high (or, depending upon the report, either 230 feet (70m) high or 328 feet (100m) high). If it is 722 feet, it would be one third taller than the Great Pyramid of Giza, making it the largest pyramidal structure on Earth.

The current target of the project is to complete excavation by 2012. This is in order to "break a cloud of negative energy, allowing the Earth to receive cosmic energy from the centre of the galaxy" according to Osmanagić,^[26] who also hopes that it will be listed as UNESCO World Heritage Site.^[27]

References

1. ^ Pyramid No More, Sub Rosa, Issue 6, Oct 2006.
2. ^ ^{a b} The great Bosnian pyramid scheme by Anthony Harding, British Archaeology November/December 2006
3. ^ John Bohannon, Mad About Pyramids, Science Magazine, 22 September 2006.
4. ^ Declaration from the European Association of Archaeologists, 11 Dec 2006
5. ^ Australian in Bosnia pyramid riddle, Sydney Morning Herald, 20 January 2006
6. ^ ^{a b} Mark Rose, Bosnian "Pyramids" Update, Archaeology Magazine Online, 14 June2006
7. ^ Nick Hawton, Indiana Jones of the Balkans and the mystery of a hidden pyramid, Times Online, 15 April 2006
8. ^ Rose, Mark. "The Bosnia-Atlantis Connection". Archaeology Magazine Online. URL accessed 2006-04-29.
9. ^ Lucian Harris, Amateur to dig on site of medieval capital in search of Bosnia's own Valley of the Kings, The Art Newspaper, 15 April 2006
10. ^ Archaeologists find medieval artefacts on Mt. Visocica, disparage pyramid seeker[1]
11. ^ Anthony Harding, Bosnia's rich heritage, Times Online, 25 April 2006
12. ^ RGGF / Start (novosti)
13. ^ University of Tuzla
14. ^ Untitled Document
15. ^ Stop Osmanagich NOW!, 08 May, 2006
16. ^ Bosnian 'pyramid' created by nature, say European experts, Yahoo! AFP, June 9 2006.
17. ^ Letter to Archaeology Magazine (PDF)
18. ^ Aida Cerkez-Robinson British Expert Nixes Bosnia Pyramid Claim, ABC News
19. ^ At last, Dr. Barakat’s report, 08 May, 2006
20. ^ The Bosnian Pyramid Phenomenon, The New Archaeology Review vol 1.8 pp 16-17], September 2006
21. ^ Comments regarding the visit of Dr. Schoch and Dr. Dowell to Visoko, Sept 2006
22. ^ Articles by Dr. Schoch & Dr. Dowell
23. ^ Nezavisni magazin BH DANI - ONLINE
24. ^ N. Nukić, Report on a Geological Survey of "Visočica" Elevation in Visoko, Bosnia and Herzegovina (Word document), Archaelogical Park: Bosnian Pyramid of the Sun Foundation, November 2005
25. ^ Osmanagic: Bosnian Pyramid of the Sun Candidate for “Mother” of all Pyramids, FENA News, 20 April 2005
26. ^ Energijsko središče sveta?, Misteriji. Accessed 13 July 2006. (Slovenian)
27. ^ 5-year Plan of Research on Visoko’s Visocica 1 Jan 2006 - 31 Dec 2010, Archaeological Park: Bosnian Pyramid of the Sun Foundation. Accessed 13 July 2006.

Insane Picture, Part 3

A while ago, I spoke about women wearing thongs when they don't have thong-appropriate bodies. I think this girl has a little too much badonkadonk for that g-string...

Great Whites jumping for prey- Planet Earth

Worst Album Covers Ever

Check out this site. It's pretty insane what some people thought made a good album cover.

Here's just a couple album covers, so you get what I'm talking about.

Peregrine Falcon Acting Pretty Cocky Since Being Taken Off Endangered Species List

This is the source for this article

WASHINGTON—Only a few short years after being removed from the endangered species list, the American peregrine falcon—once considered a creature of nobility and grace—has transformed into an "unappreciative jerk," wildlife experts reported Monday.

According to workers at the Peregrine Fund, a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting falcons around the world, the predatory bird has exhibited a complete change in attitude since its resurgence. Animal advocates have reportedly observed the falcon flaunting its magnificent 3.5-foot wingspan, nesting arrogantly atop nearby cliffs, and generally acting like "king shit" wherever it goes.

"For decades, the peregrine falcon faced a very real and very serious threat," U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service deputy director Rowan Gould said. "There was a time when many of us feared we would never see this majestic creature again, when we did everything in our power to ensure that this marvel of nature would be around for generations to come."

Added Gould, "If only we'd known then what cocky little pricks they'd turn out to be."

In recent months, the peregrine falcon has continued to infuriate environmentalists by reclaiming its habitat without so much as a simple thank you, frequently and loudly mating in everyone's face, and hunting prey off the coast of Maine as though it were "master of the fricking skies."

In addition, the blue-gray member of the Falconiformes order has put off dozens of its once-ardent supporters by reportedly just sitting there like it was invincible and never once on the brink of extinction.

"How about showing a little gratitude, pal?" said Dr. Michael Halpern, a behavioral ecologist and noted naturalist. "We didn't have to save you, you know. There were plenty of other species on that list that would've loved our help. Hundreds of other species that would've damn near polished our knobs had we chosen to save them."

Despite battling back from near extinction, the peregrine falcon—known for its distinctive white markings and "pompous fat face"—is reportedly not out of danger just yet. According to Halpern, the predatory bird could still be wiped out by a number of environmental factors, including the use of agricultural pesticides, increased deforestation in rural areas, changing climates, or, perhaps, a series of well-deserved beatings to the head.

"You think you're so darned stately, don't you?" Halpern continued. "Well, we'll see how stately you look after I put my foot up your cloaca."

Moved by the peregrine falcon's arrogant resurgence, thousands of angered wildlife advocates have been working day and night to put the flourishing species back on the endangered list. A petition to "Teach That Conceited Dirtbag Some Manners" has reportedly garnered 30,000 signatures in less than two days, and an effort has begun to change the falcon's scientific designation from Falco peregrinus to Fatso perestupidjerk.

"Time is running out," said World Wildlife Fund director Margaret Weiss, standing before a photo of the bird, which she then spit on and angrily tore apart. "Every minute we waste is another minute the peregrine falcon thinks it's better than us! Every minute we fail to act is another minute the peregrine falcon spends strutting around like Mr. Gosh-Darned Hollywood!"

"Think about your grandchildren," Weiss added. "Do you want them to grow up in a world filled with these a-holes?"

Unless its attitude changes, the peregrine falcon may soon join several other animals back on the endangered list, including a thankless species of sea turtle, and a class of dung beetle that really, really had it coming.

Insane Picture, Part 2

What are these idiots thinking?!

Stop the slaughter of innocent dogs and cats in China

If this video makes you as sick as it does me, please take the time to sign the petition at the following link:

http://www.furisdead.com/pledge-furfree.asp

Interesting Fact of the Month, Part 1

People who have had Botox injections are less able to decipher the facial expressions (and thus, the moods or emotions) of others.

Research has shown that simply moving the muscles in the face that result in facial expressions that correspond with certain emotions results in the actual sensation of experiencing the emotion. For instance, if you force yourself to smile, the action itself causes stimulation in the brain in the same areas as when you actually experience the emotion of happiness.

Further research has shown that humans subconsciously mimic the facial expressions of other humans in their line of sight, suggesting that this is a mechanism for people to empathize with the moods of others before interacting with them.

People who have had Botox injections are less likely to interpret the moods of people in photographs than are people who have not had the injections, as they are less able to move the
muscles in the face.

"Who's the Hybrid?" Part 2

Who is this picture a hybrid of? Hint: The two people crossed have been in the news recently.

Doesn't it look creepily like this guy?

Happy Halloween

Put this on your front porch!

It's Halloween- Time for girls to dress like whores... but wait...

Everyone's noticed a trend at Halloween parties: girls can dress skanky, and get away with it! Now, I'm not complaining about that trend at all... It's great. In fact, it made Halloween one of my favorite holidays when I was single! :)

No party was complete without the sexy nurse, the sexy maid, the sexy police woman, the sexy school girl, the sexy witch, the sexy pirate wench...

Like these ones:






HOWEVER...

But look at this- I ran across this article today that kind of disturbed me: link

Why are children's costumes being all sexified now? It's borderline kiddie porn.
Check this out. It's just wrong.


Food for thought. Watch out for your kids!

"Organic" is a scam!

Most text in this post quoted from this main source

Before presenting arguments against organic production (below), I would like to stress my opinion on the best route to sustainable food production. In order to attain nutritious crops with adequate yields to sustain the world's population, while reducing both ecological impacts and resistance of crop pests to pesticides, food production needs to incorporate Integrated Pest Management (IPM) strategies. IPM is the wave of the future. I am not a "nozzle head" who loves pesticides, but I really do believe they have their rightful place within IPM strategies. Genetically Modified (GM) foods are a useful tool as well, as long as they do not lead to problems such as "super weeds" (we'll discuss these at a later date).

It’s not healthier or Greener, and it's incapable of feeding the world. So why is Organic Food in fashion?

Organic food is certainly a lifestyle choice, but there is no conclusive evidence that it's better for you and that it's worth the money. It definitely is not sustainable in this world with ever-increasing populations. Organics are only four per cent of total farm produce, and one can not argue that 96 per cent of farm produce is inferior because it’s not organic.’ (1)

On main argument is that organic production is better for the environment. (2) But how much better is it really? And you have to ask yourself what is more valuable: production that is capable of feeding the world, or production that can feed only a small portion of the world's people but will cut pesticide use?

It is assumed by most people that organic food is more ‘natural’ and therefore by definition healthier and better for the environment – but is it true?

The author of The Truth About Organic Foods, Alex Avery, a plant physiologist and biologist, concludes that organic food is no healthier than ‘conventional’ food, and argues that the claim of organic food to be better for the environment is suspect.

Pesticide Residues

According to Avery, the fact is most of our food does not contain residues of toxic chemicals and pesticides, and the minority of food items that do have traces in the infinitesimal parts per millions range. A host of different chemicals can cause cancer in rodents when researchers feed them to the animals in very large quantities, but the minute quantities involved in pesticide residues mean the same chemicals are harmless in food. There is no evidence of anybody ever dying or falling seriously ill from eating food carrying traces of man-made pesticides.

The over-reaction to the dangers from manmade pesticides is in sharp contrast to the complete ignorance shown towards naturally-occurring poisons. Everyday foods are full of natural pesticides. The world-famous biochemist Bruce Ames makes the point clear: ‘The natural chemicals that are known rodent carcinogens in a single cup of coffee are about equal in weight to a year’s worth of ingested synthetic pesticide residues that are rodent carcinogens.’ (3) He is not arguing that coffee is dangerous, rather, he’s pointing out that the tiny risk from manmade chemicals is actually smaller than other small risks we accept as a normal part of life.

As it happens, as Avery points out, organic produce is not entirely free from chemicals – it is simply that a much narrower range of such chemicals is allowed for food to qualify as ‘organic’, and they tend to be used less frequently. Given that some of the things that pesticides are designed to eliminate – like poisonous fungal growths – are pretty dangerous, that is not necessarily beneficial in any event.

Nutritional Value

Another assertion often made about organic food is that it is more nutritious. It is not clear, in principle, why this might be. However, some studies suggest it might be the case. Avery looks at these studies in detail and finds many of them deeply flawed. The best review of the evidence, a paper by Woese et al in 1997, concludes that it is very difficult to conclude anything at all. ‘Conventional’ foods contain more pesticide residues and more nitrates – hardly surprising given their greater use in conventional agriculture. But overall, the authors note: ‘With regard to all other desirable nutritional values, it was either the case that no major differences were observed in physico-chemical analyses between the products from different production forms, or contradictory findings did not permit any clear statements. (4)’

In fact, not only do better quality studies in peer-reviewed journals show no consistent difference between the two types of food, Avery notes that even some organic advocates admit it. As William Lockeretz of Tufts University told an organic food conference in 1997: ‘I wish I could tell you that there is a clear, consistent nutritional difference between organic and conventional foods. Even better, I wish I could tell you that the difference is in favour of organic. Unfortunately, though, from my reading of the scientific literature, I do not believe such a claim can be responsibly made. (5)’

Even if there were nutritional differences between organic and conventional food, any benefit one way or the other is likely to be much smaller than variation based on the variety of a crop used, other growing conditions, freshness, cooking method - even which foods are consumed together.

Environmental concerns

The environmental case for organic mainly rests upon the pollution caused by producing agricultural chemicals and cleaning up after them. It is certainly true that producing fertilizers in particular uses energy and this inevitably means fossil fuels. But the production of chemicals is only one part of the energy used in putting food on our plates. As a recent article in the Economist notes, many of the assumptions made about what is the most ‘green’ way to supply food are simply wrong. It suggests that big supermarkets, with highly efficient logistics, are arguably ‘greener’ than trying to feed the nation through local farmers’ markets.

Citing research from the UK Department of Environment and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), the article says: ‘[A] shift towards a local food system, and away from a supermarket-based food system with its central distribution depots, lean supply chains and big, full trucks, might actually increase the number of food-vehicle miles being travelled locally, because things would move around in a larger number of smaller, less efficiently packed vehicles. (6)’

To maintain the same overall level of food production using organic methods today would require far more land to be used for farming. In developed countries such as the UK, where the efficiency of industrial farming methods has left many small farms redundant, there might be space to indulge a small land-hungry organic sector. But if we truly pursued the idea of an organic-only economy, the effect on land usage would be dramatic. At a time when environmentalists complain about how wildernesses are being cleared to produce food, the need to clear more land is organic farming’s dirty little secret.

The other alternative is to grow less food. There is no way, using organic methods, that the world’s current population could be sustained on the 37 per cent of land currently used in agriculture. The solution for some, it would appear, is not more food but fewer people. In the words of one organic farmer quoted by Avery, ‘I want to argue that production is not the problem. The problem is the imbalance of humans relative to the millions of other species with whom we co-evolved. (7)’

Don’t mess with nature

The precise arguments organic food groups are actually neither here nor there because no-one is really holding them to account. The underlying temper of our times is that anything processed or industrialised can be seen as adulterated and harmful, while anything that appears to be natural or close to nature can be regarded as pure and uncorrupted. The precise facts about residues, nutrition or environmental impact are rarely discussed.

The ‘don’t mess with nature’ approach is illustrated by the organic movement’s attitude to genetic modification. Rather than embracing GM as opening up the possibility of greater control over the properties of plants, it is rejected as dangerous interference in nature with all sorts of unknown potential problems. GM crops have the potential to allow greater productivity, reduced use of pesticides and increased nutrition. The organic movement prefers to smear GM crops as the work of malevolent agribusiness trying to create monopolies.

Even if it is found that a particular GM crop did not live up to expectations or caused unexpected problems, that would not be a cause to dismiss the whole technology out of hand. Any process involving experimentation and new techniques will have problems along the way. The most logical approach would be to learn from our mistakes in order to continue improvements. If the entire world was well-fed and food was as cheap as it could be, the discussion might be academic. But when a large proportion of the world’s population is still undernourished, society must constantly explore ways to grow more, better, food.

Sources:

(1) Organic farmers hit back at Miliband’s food verdict, Independent, 8 January 2007

(2) Organic farmers hit back at Miliband’s food verdict, Independent, 8 January 2007

(3) Risk, cancer and manmade chemicals, by Bruce Ames and Lois Swirsky Gold

(4) Woese K., D. Lange, C. Boess & K. Werner Böel (1997). ‘A comparison of organically and conventionally grown foods: results of a review of the relevant literature’. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 74: 281-293

(5) Quoted by Avery, The Truth About Organic Foods, p 32

(6) Voting with your trolley, Economist, 9 December 2006

(7) Fred Kirschenmann, quoted in Avery, p212

Frickin' Idiots!

Proof that Darwin was right about survival of the fittest.

Chris Osgood Gets To Third Base With Stanley Cup

Seeing that the NHL season is underway, I thought I would post some of the most shocking hockey news of the day.

This is the source for this article.

Chris Osgood Gets To Third Base With Stanley Cup

LOS ANGELES—Sources within the Red Wings organization confirm that goalie Chris Osgood, who is currently engaged in accompanying the Stanley Cup on a victory tour of talk shows and publicity events, has repeatedly and insistently claimed to have gotten as far as third base with hockey's championship trophy during the past week.

On Tuesday night Osgood, teammate Nicklas Lidstrom, and the Stanley Cup made an appearance on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno during which Osgood was seen repeatedly touching and attempting to hold the Cup. Witnesses say that after the segment had taped, Lidstrom left for the airport, while Osgood and the Cup left together for the Four Seasons Hotel.

Housekeeping staff said Wednesday morning that the Cup's room had not been slept in.

When asked for comment, Osgood himself initially refused to give details.

"Listen, it's tradition for us to all kiss the Cup. But I'm not one of those hockey players who are always saying 'I'm gonna [expletive deleted] that Stanley Cup,'" Osgood told ESPN's Jim Rome when asked about his involvement with the trophy on Wednesday's Jim Rome Is Burning. "I mean, everyone dreams of winning the Cup, that's only natural. But it's not like that with me. Come on, man."

However, when Rome attempted to change the subject to Osgood's long and tumultuous Detroit career, Osgood, apparently warming to the subject, continued to talk about his relationship with the Cup.

"Okay, now, I'm not saying there isn't—it's a powerful feeling, when you win the Cup, and sometimes that leads to other feelings that are just as powerful," Osgood continued. "Things happen, but you and the Cup both want them to happen, and you go back to the hotel and ask it to watch Dirty Dancing, and eventually maybe you get into some up and over, or there's some up and down and underneath, or maybe—I'm not saying this happened, but you know—maybe there's more than one way to kiss the Cup."

"A better way," a grinning Osgood added as an evidently stunned Rome remained mute. "A way that brings the Cup as much pleasure as the Cup brings you. Or the great city of Detroit, for that matter."

Reaction from the world of hockey has, predictably, been mixed. Although the Stanley Cup is more revered than other trophies, perhaps because of its accessibility, not everyone is comfortable with the prospect of it being involved in mild to moderate sexual contact with a player.

"I know that every player on the winning team gets a day with the Cup. That's just tradition," said Detroit hockey fan Roy Wertree. "And no one deserves that day more than Chris, because he really got us through the Finals. And I know he and the Cup are both old enough to make their own decisions, but I don't know. Something about Osgood and the cup gratifying one another in a sensual fashion is just weird."

"Why would he even want to?" asked Grosse Point's Meg McEntyre. "I mean, the Stanley cup is older than he is, for one thing. And do you know how many guys must have kissed it over the years?"

Although the NHL has not officially commented on the event, sources within the organization say that Osgood's experience may not be unique.

"For years there have been rumors that the Stanley Cup had been involved in unusual relationships with top players," said ESPN's Barry Melrose. "Mark Messier was rumored to appear late at night outside the Hockey Hall of Fame in Toronto in the offseason, shouting the Cup's name until the police could escort him home. Wayne Gretzky was once seen standing between his furious wife Janet and the Stanley Cup in the corridor of the Edmonton Hilton, clad only in a towel and repeatedly denying that the Cup was destroying their marriage. And Gordie Howe's career was haunted by rumors that he allowed the Cup to tie him to seedy hotel beds. It's all part of why this is the greatest sport in the world."

Insane Picture, Part 1

Just as I will add Crazy Videos regularly, I will also add Insane Pictures often.

Here is the first in the series:
How's that for a banana hammock? It's just like Borat's from that movie. The crazy thing is, I actually saw a guy wearing one of these at one of our local beaches a couple weeks ago. Why... why... why?!

Crazy Video, Part 1

Every so often, I will post Crazy videos of the day. Here's the first one...

What is wrong with the Japanese?! :)
Crazy Japanese Port-O-Potty Prank - The funniest bloopers are right here

Inappropriate Beach Attire

When my wife and I travel to sunny destinations, we like to take lots of pictures. Unfortunately, that means that sometimes we catch people in the background of our shots who should be on the beach version of "What not to Wear". As painful as they sometimes are to our retinas, we also get a good laugh out of it.

Below are actual pictures from some of our travels, with everything cropped out of the picture except the subject matter at hand.





First of all, why, in this day and age, are men still wearing the “banana hammock”? It’s mostly European men, and I suppose things are different in Europe. But seriously… Nobody wants to see that.












Here is a man waiting -inside- the hotel lobby in the checkout line, letting it all hang out. How classy.












The thong. OK, they look great in rap videos or “Girls Gone Wild” commercials, but why wear them at family vacation spots, especially when you don’t have a thong-appropriate body like this lady?













Here’s a banana hammock and bad thong combo having a leisurely stroll together. What a happy couple.






Now don't get me wrong; I do like thongs... when they are on the right kind of body. But here's the thing- although they won’t get many complaints from the guys in the area, should they really be showing off the “shanks” to the little kiddies at poolside? This would be OK at an all adult resort, or whatever.





And this one… it looks like it’s gonna fall off any second… Somebody get some duct tape. It's kind of distracting when you're sitting there waiting for an accident to happen.

Deep Fried Mon Calamari

Mmmm, I had the best food at the Coruscant Cafe last night. If you're ever in the area, you must go check it out!There were more choices of entrees there than you could shake a stick at, and the one I had was cooked to perfection by one of the best Corellian chefs in the area.

The appetizers are so good, you're gonna want to make a meal out of them. Here's what I had:

Deep fried "Mon Calamari", with sweet lemon dipping sauce. Absolutely mouth-watering!


Not only that, but I even got to select the animal from an aquarium prior to cooking. I managed to snap a quick pic of the unsuspecting molluscs before I selected the tantalizing one in the middle. Yum!

Language Rant, Part 1

There are certain habits people have when speaking or writing in English that chafe me like a marathon runner in a burlap shirt. This will be the first of several rants on the subject.

• Let's start with "expecially". It's supposed to be "especially". Oh, and it's "espresso", not "expresso".
• "Irregardless". What editing genius at Merriam-Webster allowed this word to become acceptable?
• "Anyways"- Why do people always pluralize this word? You wouldn't say "You can go any ways you want to get there.", would you?
• "I says"- I hear this one often when people are recounting past conversations. "I says, 'that can't be', and he says, 'yes, it's true', so I says, 'get outta town!'". It's "I said"!
• Inappropriate use of apostrophes! I can't stand that. You should never randomly insert an apostrophe into a plural. For example, "tomato's" does not mean the same thing as "tomatoes"; it means the subject belongs to someone named Tomato. Also, inappropriate use of quotations- people often use them to add emphasis, but they shouldn't be used that way. For example, when a sign reads "Buy one, get one “Free"", it makes it seem like there's a catch and the second item really isn't free.
• Since when should anyone ever "axe" a question? A friend of mine once said he "axed" a girl out, and I thought that sounded horrible, and I should probably call the cops!

OK, that's all for now. Stay tuned for more.

Who's the greatest female Three's Company roommate ever?

OK, let's get the preamble out of the way first: Everyone watched "Three's Company". It's a classic. Let's face it, John Ritter was a master of physical comedy, and it's a shame he passed away so young. I've been watching the show nostalgically on Deja View for the past few weeks. My favourite episode was the one where someone told a lie to cover something up, and there was a misunderstanding, then one roommate eavesdropped on another and overheard something that they misinterpreted, and there was another crazy misunderstanding... You know the one, right?

Now let's get to the burning question that is on everyone's lips: "Who was the best of all Jack Tripper's female roomates?" Let me count them down.


#4 Cindy Snow- Jenilee Harrison
Fourth place seems too high (even though there were only four). If Jack had had 100 roommates, she would have come in 100th place. I can't say enough negative things about the Cindy character and Jenilee's portrayal of her. The best thing about Cindy was when she decided to no longer drop in on the "lovable space that needs your face." More like the writers wrote her off the show, and with very good reason. When Suzanne Somers (Chrissy Snow) left the show, the writers introduced Chrissy's slightly less dumb but more clutsy cousin, Cindy. The formula could have worked if Jenilee's clumsiness wasn't so contrived (read poor comedic timing), and her character wasn't such a naive know-it-all. She was not well received by the audience who wanted Chrissy back, and after one bad season, she was quickly sidelined to make way for a much better performer, and better looking Priscilla Barnes (Terri Alden). Surprisingly, the writers kept her around for another season, but as a secondary character, and not one of the roommates.

#3 Terri Alden- Priscilla Barnes
Priscilla was a former Penthouse Pet of the Month, who had some definite acting skills, and her timing with John Ritter was very good. I'm not really into blondes, but of all the blondes on the show, I think she was the best looking. Most people prefer Suzanne Somers, but I always thought Priscilla Barnes was hotter, even when I was a pre-teen. Priscilla was a welcomed change from the horrible Jenilee Harrison, and it's obvious why she was brought into the show to help save a sinking ship... and help she did- the show went on for another four successful seasons. For once, the show had a blonde who was not dumb, but in fact, Terri Alden was a very intelligent, professional woman. Her antagonism of Jack was fantastic.

#2 Chrissy Snow- Suzanne Somers
Suzanne Somers was one of the most popular actresses on all of TV when she played Chrissy Snow, and Chrissy tops many people's lists of favourite Three's Company characters. In fact, Chrissy's tops were on many people's lists. She played the "bouncy" dumb blonde exceptionally well, and how she so naively got a "rise" out of Jack was incredible. She wasn't the hottest in my opinion, though, and another negative was that her facial expressions often made her seem somewhat mentally challenged (a turn off). All in all, she did a good job, and it was too bad she left the show .

#1 Janet Wood- Joyce DeWitt
By far and away, number one. Joyce DeWitt was very much underrated. Not only was she a solid staple on the show for its duration, but she had exceptional comedic timing, and made John Ritter seem even better than he was. I think many people overlook her, as her character was one of the only level-headed people on the show... not to mention she was the dependable tom-boyish brunette. Call me crazy, but I always thought she was the cutest girl on the show (but alas, I prefer brunettes after all). She didn't look her best in her awful afro phase, though. I always thought Janet and Jack should have ended up together in TV land. "Three's a Crowd" would have been much better if it revolved around a married Janet and Jack--- I never liked that prudish Vicky character. "Three's a Crowd", unfortunately for John Ritter's career was a flop; perhaps things would have been different if Joyce DeWitt had been involved.

The Large Hadron Collider- Are we all doomed?!

So here's the thing... The experiments talked about below are some of the largest, most relevant and exciting experiments being undertaken at the moment, and are possibly the most significant of this century. Hundreds of scientists are as excited about these experiments as I was at 8 years old when Return of the Jedi came out in theatres. Believe me, I'm interested in the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) results as well; it -could- support or even prove some of the biggest theories in physics. But... the LHC -could- also spell our doom. If something has a 1 in 1,000,000,000 chance of happening, it still has a chance! One scientist said there is more chance that all the oxygen molecules in the room you are sitting in shift to one side of the room suddenly and suffocate you than the LHC producing a global disaster. I say, even if that's true, it's still a chance!

Mark October 21st on your calendar- it could be the first day of Armaggedon!

This summary of the LHC comes from the most reputable source in existence, Wikipedia:

"The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is the world's largest and highest-energy particle accelerator complex, intended to collide opposing beams of protons with very high kinetic energy. Its main purpose is to explore the validity and limitations of the Standard Model, the current theoretical picture for particle physics. It is theorized that the collider will confirm the existence of the Higgs boson, the observation of which could confirm the predictions and missing links in the Standard Model, and could explain how other elementary particles acquire properties such as mass.

The LHC was built by the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), and lies underneath the Franco-Swiss border near Geneva, Switzerland. It is funded by and built in collaboration with over eight thousand physicists from over eighty-five countries as well as hundreds of universities and laboratories. The LHC is already operational and is presently in the process of being prepared for collisions. The first beams were circulated through the collider on 10 September 2008, and the first high-energy collisions are planned to take place after the LHC is officially unveiled on 21 October.

When in operation, about seven thousand scientists from eighty countries will have access to the LHC. It is theorized that the collider will produce the elusive Higgs boson, the last unobserved particle among those predicted by the Standard Model. The verification of the existence of the Higgs boson would shed light on the mechanism of electroweak symmetry breaking, through which the particles of the Standard Model are thought to acquire their mass. In addition to the Higgs boson, other particles predicted by possible extensions of the Standard Model might be produced at the LHC. More generally, physicists hope that the LHC will enhance their ability to answer the following questions:

• Is the Higgs mechanism for generating elementary particle masses in the Standard Model indeed realised in nature?^[1] If so, how many Higgs bosons are there, and what are their masses?
• Are electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force just different manifestations of a single unified force, as predicted by various Grand Unification Theories?
• Why is gravity so many orders of magnitude weaker than the other three fundamental forces? See also Hierarchy problem.
• Is Supersymmetry realised in nature, implying that the known Standard Model particles have supersymmetric partners?
• Will the more precise measurements of the masses and decays of the quarks continue to be mutually consistent within the Standard Model?
• Why are there apparent violations of the symmetry between matter and antimatter? See also CP-violation.
• What is the nature of dark matter and dark energy?
• Are there extra dimensions^[2] , as predicted by various models inspired by string theory, and can we "see" them?

Of the possible discoveries the LHC might make, only the discovery of the Higgs particle is relatively uncontroversial, but even this is not considered a certainty. Stephen Hawking said in a BBC interview that "I think it will be much more exciting if we don't find the Higgs. That will show something is wrong, and we need to think again. I have a bet of one hundred dollars that we won't find the Higgs." In the same interview Hawking mentions the possibility of finding superpartners and adds that "whatever the LHC finds, or fails to find, the results will tell us a lot about the structure of the universe."^[3]

Safety of particle collisions

Although a few individuals, including scientists, have questioned the safety of the Large Hadron Collider in the media and through the courts, the consensus in the scientific community is that there is no conceivable threat from the LHC particle collisions.

Sources:

1. ^ "...in the public presentations of the aspiration of particle physics we hear too often that the goal of the LHC or a linear collider is to check off the last missing particle of the Standard Model, this year’s Holy Grail of particle physics, the Higgs boson. The truth is much less boring than that! What we’re trying to accomplish is much more exciting, and asking what the world would have been like without the Higgs mechanism is a way of getting at that excitement." -Chris Quigg, Nature's Greatest Puzzles
2. ^ Randall, Lisa. "Extra Dimensions and Warped Geometries. Science. Vol. 296, 24 May 2002]".
3. ^ Stephen Hawking interviewed by the BBC on the switch-on of the Large Hadron Collider. news.bbc.co.uk. Retrieved on 10 September 2008."

The following info comes from this article Safety of the Large Hadron Collider.

"The claimed dangers of the LHC particle collisions, which are scheduled to begin on 21 October 2008,^[3] include doomsday scenarios involving the production of stable micro black holes or the creation of hypothetical particles called strangelets.^[4] The potential risks of these unprecedented experiments were reviewed in 2003 by the LHC Safety Study Group, a group of independent scientists, who concluded that, like current particle experiments such as the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC), the LHC particle collisions pose no conceivable threat.^[5] A second review of the evidence commissioned by CERN in 2008 reaffirmed the safety of the LHC collisions in light of further research conducted since the 2003 assessment.^[6][7] The 2008 report was reviewed and endorsed by CERN's governing body and by the Division of Particles & Fields of the American Physical Society and was published in the Journal of Physics G.^[8][9][6] It concludes that any doomsday scenarios at the LHC are ruled out because the physical conditions and events that will be created in the LHC experiments occur naturally in the universe without hazardous consequences.^[6]

In the run up to the commissioning of the LHC, with the first high energy collisions scheduled for 21 October 2008, a group of individuals led by Walter L. Wagner (a former nuclear safety officer and an original opponent of the RHIC) and Otto Rössler, a German biochemist, have expressed concerns over the safety of the LHC, and have attempted to halt the beginning of the experiments through petitions to the US and European Courts.^{[1][10][11][12]} Opponents assert that the LHC experiments have the potential to create low velocity micro black holes that could grow in mass or release dangerous radiation leading to doomsday scenarios, such as the destruction of the Earth.^[4] Other claimed potential risks include the creation of theoretical particles called strangelets, magnetic monopoles and vacuum bubbles.^[4] The claims made about the safety of the LHC have attracted widespread media attention.^[1] This has raised fears among the public that the Earth will be destroyed by the experiments at the LHC, and scientists associated with the project have received many protests. The Large Hadron Collider team revealed they had received death threats and threatening emails and phone calls demanding the experiment be halted.^[13][14]

Concern over the LHC has also arisen due to the interpretation of comments made by Martin Rees, an English cosmologist and astrophysicist who is President of the Royal Society and has been the Astronomer Royal since 1995.^[10] Rees authored the book Our Final Century: Will the Human Race Survive the Twenty-first Century? in which he estimates a 50% chance that mankind will destroy itself before the year 2100.^[15] Rees calculated that the probability of the Large Hadron Collider to produce a global catastrophe or black hole is 1 in 50 million.^[10][16][17] However, Rees has also reported not to be "losing sleep over the collider," and trusts the scientists who have built it.^[18] He has stated, "My book has been misquoted in one or two places. I would refer you to the up-to-date safety study."^[13]

Specific concerns and safety arguments

Micro black holes

A major concern amongst CERN opponents is that any micro black holes produced by the LHC particle collisions may have a very low velocity and so, unlike any created by natural cosmic ray collisions, they will not escape the Earth's gravitational pull. If the black holes do not immediately decay, they may remain within the Earth and begin accreting (collecting) matter in the planet. Walter L. Wagner has argued that if micro black holes are produced at the LHC, they might not decay as predicted by CERN, since Hawking radiation is not an experimentally-tested or naturally observed phenomenon and might not exist.^[34][35]

Although the Standard Model of particle physics predicts that LHC energies are far too low to create black holes, some extensions of the Standard Model posit the existence of extra spatial dimensions, in which it would be possible to create micro black holes at the LHC at a rate on the order of one per second.^[36][37][38] According to the standard calculations these are harmless because they would quickly decay by Hawking radiation.^[36][37] The LHC Safety Assessment Group (LSAG) indicates that "there is broad consensus among physicists on the reality of Hawking radiation, but so far no experiment has had the sensitivity required to find direct evidence for it."^[6] According to the LSAG, even if micro black holes were produced by the LHC and were stable, "they would be unable to accrete matter in a manner dangerous for the Earth. [...] they would also have been produced by cosmic rays and have stopped in the Earth or some other astronomical body, and the stability of these astronomical bodies means that they cannot be dangerous."^[6] The LSAG argues that:

“

Stable black holes could be either electrically charged or neutral. [...] If stable microscopic black holes had no electric charge, their interactions with the Earth would be very weak. Those produced by cosmic rays would pass harmlessly through the Earth into space, whereas those produced by the LHC could remain on Earth. However, there are much larger and denser astronomical bodies than the Earth in the Universe. Black holes produced in cosmic-ray collisions with bodies such as neutron stars and white dwarf stars would be brought to rest. The continued existence of such dense bodies, as well as the Earth, rules out the possibility of the LHC producing any dangerous black holes.[7]

”

Otto Rössler, German chemistry professor at the University of Tübingen, believes that micro black holes created in the LHC could grow exponentially.^{[39][40][41][42]} Hermann Nicolai, Director of the Albert Einstein Institute, in Germany, has examined Otto Rössler's research paper on the safety of the LHC^[40] and has issued a statement highlighting logical inconsistencies and physical misunderstandings in Rössler's arguments.^[43] Nicolai concludes that "this text would not pass the referee process in a serious journal."^[43][44] Domenico Giulini has also commented with Hermann Nicolai on the validity of Otto Rössler's thesis, concluding that "his argument concerns only the General Theory of Relativity (GRT), and makes no logical connection to LHC physics; the argument is not valid; the argument is not self-consistent."^[45] On 1 August 2008, a group of German physicists, the Committee for Elementary Particle Physics (KET),^[46] published an open letter dismissing Rössler's concerns and carrying assurances that the LHC is safe.^[47][48]

Strangelets

Strangelets are a hypothetical form of strange matter that contains roughly equal numbers of up, down, and strange quarks and are more stable than ordinary nuclei.^{[citation needed]} If strangelets can actually exist, and if they were produced at LHC, they could conceivably initiate a runaway fusion process in which all the nuclei in the planet were converted to strange matter, similar to a strange star.^{[citation needed]}

“

Perhaps cosmic-ray collisions really are creating tiny black holes or strangelets, but those little bits of doomsday zip by too fast to cause any trouble. In the LHC, they say, the bad stuff could hang around long enough to be captured by Earth’s gravity and set off a catastrophe.[34]

”

The probability of the creation of strangelets decreases at higher energies. As the LHC operates at higher energies than the RHIC or the heavy ion programs of the 1980s and 1990s, LHC is less likely to produce strangelets than its predecessors.^[6] Furthermore, models indicate that strangelets are only stable or long-lived at low temperatures. Strangelets are bound at low energies (in the range of 1-10 MeV), whilst the collisions in the LHC release energies in the range of 14 TeV. The second law of thermodynamics precludes the formation of a cold condensate that is an order of magnitude cooler than the surrounding medium. This can be illustrated by the example of trying to form an ice cube in boiling water.^[6]

Sources: see this link