I'm reading about 5 amazing archaeological discoveries preserved by nature, and particularly Oetzi the Iceman.

Considering that the scientists have discovered he suffered from an infection of H. pylori, I would be quite curious to know if his subsequent beating and arrow death was the result of his fellow travelers thinking he had some form of plague, rather than it being that he just pissed off a rival gang or something.

On one hand, I applaud the efforts of protecting endangered species and/or bringing back extinct species.

On the other hand, I question whether or not humans could have evolved had the dinosaurs not gone extinct.

It just make me wonder: By attempting to preserve the status quo, what other species are we possibly preventing from evolving?

I decided a long time ago that one of my long-term goals was to live long enough to be able to see Haley's comet again.

The second goal was to witness the emergence of true AI.

Now, I have a third goal: live long enough to see humans landing on Mars.

Wouldn't it be interesting to see the collision of these three goals? Can you imagine AIs helping to foster new technology that gets us to Mars and allows us to view Haley's comet from that vantage point?

I'm too old, I'm sure, and not in the field of astrophysics enough, but it would be so exciting to be one of those pioneers. Some kid out there, still in early grade school right now, will grow up to be the first human to set foot on Mars. My middle nephew is pretty smart and already shows an interest in the planets of the solar system. I bet he would thrive in this field. He reminds me of the character Vincent in Gattaca, laying out rocks in a parking lot for the solar system. I grew up enamored of Sally Ride and Valentina Tereshkova, and thought it would be awesome to be an astronaut myself. I was one of the millions of children watching the live Challenger liftoff from my school desk, and I learned the importance of aeronautical safety in a matter of seconds. I'm glad that we're taking our time and slowly testing the waters instead of jumping in head first. I wonder how much Tereshkova's influence has had in these Journey to Mars plans.

My nephew sprained his ankle in his P.E. class, and it got me to thinking.

P.E. is NOT Physical Education, as the name implies. Yeah, the kids get exercise, but wouldn't it be wonderful if P.E. actually was a class about educating kids on the aspects of their physical bodies? Understanding food and diet, which could include learning to read food labels. Understanding calories and other terms that relate to the balance between food and exercise and what they mean. Learning how to track daily workouts using paper and pencil as well as modern technology, such as a walking counter/meter on a smart phone or smart watch.

All I've ever known of P.E. was that it was the alternative to athletics (read: sports and gymnastics), and that the kids participate in physical activities, but not really learn about their own physical bodies. I'm all for there being an alternative. I participated in athletics throughout all of junior high and high school, but I always hated the team sports (namely, volleyball and basketball for me as a girl). I was fine in track and cross country, and I loved when I finally joined the tennis team, and I'd been bowling since I was a little one, but those were individual, or at most doubles, sports where I wasn't having to coordinate with a team of other players. And some of those athletics teachers can be rough, which was one of the reasons I stopped being in band - for every 10 athletic teachers, there's one band instructor that feels more like a drill sergeant than those 10 athletic instructors combined ever wished they could be.

I just think it would be neat if those kids in P.E. who otherwise probably could care less about sports, and maybe even learning, were somehow primed to be open to the areas of fitness, nutrition, and maybe even physiology. There's a fallacy that the non-smart, non-atheletic kids won't succeed in those areas of study, but I think priming them to at least know about them while they are still in grade school would help open the door to new possibilities for them. It could still be an "easy A" class, but throw some actual EDUCATION into the Physical Education course.

I had dreams about eigenvectors.

Who has dreams about eigenvectors?

This nutcase, apparently.

Sharing the Explodey!

And while you're out there backing things....back this FACETS project as well.

I'm learning about accretion disks, because, um, I have no reason. Just because.

Also, I screwed up and set fire to a few of Paco's blocks. He has forgiven me, but I still feel like a heel. No, that's not a euphemism for something else. There is a box of blocks near the fireplace that I thought were for burning. I've only burned about 5 or 6 of them, but I feel pretty horrible now that I know they weren't there for burning. Bugger.

I think fire and I should not be playmates - especially when I'm sick. I'll leave the fire-making to my roommates.

When I don't have anything serious to think about, my mind wonders into all manners of weird while I'm taking my morning showers.

This morning, I had a mental debate with Dr. Manhattan regarding his statement during the interview about the atoms of a living person being the same as the atoms of a dead person. I debated that while there is no difference between the physical atoms, the delta function (as in the calculus-based function of changes over time) would be different given the ordered makeup of the pile of atoms and the electrical impulses in the living human versus the ordered (or non-ordered) makeup of the pile of atoms and non-existent electrical impulses in the non-living human.

Take THAT calculus function, Dr Manhattan!

My showers should not be so mathematical.

I always find it interesting that we are so fascinated with the Mandelbrot Set because of how pretty and intricate it is, yet if you keep zooming in on the edge of a circle, you will find just as much fractal there as well. It's just not as eye-appealing. Poor dull circle - will you ever be as interesting as your lopsided brethren?

Yeah, math humor. Go me.

My brain was stuck twiddling around with the Monty Hall problem again this morning.

I worked out the mental mechanics of it a while back (and I think I wrote it out here, somewhere), but I was still curious as to WHY do people still persist in arguing that there is a 50/50 chance of winning.

Heh. After reading that one section in the wiki file, I think the answer to that question is a matter of simple semantics rather than a question of cognitive psychology. People keep thinking, "the chances of there being a goat or a car behind the door," is the same as saying, "the chances of winning the car by changing your selection." Those are two different problems.

I came across a couple comments by some folks to a YouTube video on Aspergers that I was watching, and it's been making me think quite a lot harder about semantics and how much of a rush figuring out semantics is for me, whereas semantics might have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the actual conversation for most other people. Again, most other people are about the human, emotional connection when communicating, rather than the rhetoric, so they don't tend to go into analytical detail (like I tend to do) when it comes to communicating. They take things at some sort of hybrid gist and gestalt value, assign emotional responses, and then go from there without analyzing it too deeply.

( The quotes I came across )

The Monty Hall problem is confounding to most people on two levels: probability AND semantics. You have to be able to delve pretty deep into both in order to really wrap your mind around the correct answer, and most people do not tend to delve deep into either subject matter, let alone both.