Friday, May 29, 2009

same shit different day

heres to alcohol, the cause and solution to all lifes problems

Thursday, May 28, 2009





chris pine Pictures, Images and Photos

Chris Pine Pictures, Images and Photos

LA BELLA VITA! Pictures, Images and Photos

BRUGES Pictures, Images and Photos

More Sexy Scruff Pictures, Images and Photos



zoe kravitz Pictures, Images and Photos

I just read an article from the New York Times Style Mag by the perfume critic Chandler Burr

Now I dont have a sense of smell so I like to find out what really smells good and I think a perfume critic would be the "GO TO GUY" for getting the best input and advice on choosing a perfume to wear for male species.....heehe lol. Well, supposedly these two fragrances are "two of the greatest perfumes of the turn of the 21st century". Angel and Light Blue are both created by perfumer Olivier Cresp who has won numerous awards for his work.
I have to ask? Have you smelled Angel? I think it might be out of anybody that I knows price range so I have to ask. Does it smell that good and is it worth the investment? I already know D&G Light Blue smells good from a poll I took and 7 out of 10 people named it their favorite. I have Pink by Paris Hilton at the moment. But please advise...... :0)

Angel perfume by Thierry Mugler @ Pictures, Images and Photos

D&G Light Blue EDT $33.00-$50.00 Pictures, Images and Photos



Tuesday, May 26, 2009



love my new blue shoes!


science kick right now I guess

Early human ate young Neanderthal
Evidence shows first proof that two groups had direct, if violent, contact
A reconstructed Neanderthal skeleton, right, and a modern human skeleton, left, are on display at the Museum of Natural History. New evidence suggests early humans may have butchered and dined on Neanderthals, using their teeth as jewelry.

Frank Franklin II/AP

updated 1:48 p.m. CT, Thurs., May 21, 2009
Sometime between 28,000 and 30,000 years ago, an anatomically modern human in what is now France may have eaten a Neanderthal child and made a necklace out of its teeth, according to a new study that suggests Europe's first humans had a violent relationship with their muscular, big-headed hominid ancestors.

The evidence, which includes teeth and a carefully butchered jawbone from a site called Les Rois in southwestern France, could represent the world's first known biological proof for direct contact between the two human groups.

The research, published in the Journal of Anthropological Science, also adds to the growing body of evidence that Europe's first modern humans, who comprised the Aurignacian culture, used human bones and teeth for adornment and possible symbolic meaning.

"Four Aurignacian sites, including Les Rois, have yielded perforated human teeth, which confirms the interest in using human bone, and teeth in particular, by Aurignacians, for symbolic purposes," concluded Fernando Rozzi and his team, which also identified butchered reindeer bones excavated at the site.

Cut marks on the reindeer bones likely produced by the humans' flint tools matched those found on the Neanderthal jawbone.

A recreation of ancient butchering techniques by the scientists indicates the marks "may have resulted from slicing through the geniohyoid muscle (a narrow muscle at the bottom of the oral cavity) to remove the tongue," according to Rozzi, a researcher at Paris's National Center for Scientific Research, and his colleagues.

Marrow from the bones appears to have also been consumed.

It remains unclear, however, if a modern human killed the Neanderthal youngster outright, or if the parts were scavenged from an already dead body.

An alternative hypothesis is that the Neanderthal jawbone actually belonged to a modern human with Neanderthal characteristics, which would suggest these two human groups made love and not war.

Noted British anthropologist Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum, London, believes the new study is "very important." Although Stringer doesn't think it proves we hunted Neanderthals to death, he said the research strengthens the argument that competition from modern humans "contributed to Neanderthal extinction."

Neanderthals weren't always at the losing end of battles, however. Another new study, for the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research, found that Neanderthals were big game hunters who directly competed with hyenas, which had a similar diet and occupied the same carnivore position on the early European food chain.

Hyenas and Neanderthals also appear to have eaten each other on occasion, but project leader Gerrit Dusseldorp of the University of Witwatersrand's Institute for Human Evolution says Neanderthals were superior hunters due to their greater intelligence, communication skills and ability to cooperate.

Dusseldorp indicated that, per Rozzi's study, it's possible modern humans butchered Neanderthals. But he believes Neanderthal reliance on large prey, such as rhinos, brown bear, bison bulls and horses, may have played a bigger factor in the Neanderthal's demise, since large animal shortages could have left them hungry.

Modern humans, in contrast, are thought to have fished and hunted smaller, yet more plentiful, prey, like rabbits and birds.

"After environmental crises, modern humans may then have recovered more quickly than Neanderthals, and may have started usurping territories that before the environmental crisis were occupied by Neanderthals," Dusseldorp said.

cool stuff

Space tomato packs nutritional super-punch
A flop in space becomesan agricultural success story on Earth
A tomato developed to grow in microgravity was a flop in space, but it could become an agricultural success story on Earth if the patent is approved.
What started as a science experiment to grow plants in space has blossomed into a drought-resistant, nutritionally rich tomato — patent pending.

Mariya Khodakovskaya was a researcher at North Carolina State University when she created a genetically altered tomato seed designed to better withstand the rigors of space. The seeds were flown to the International Space Station in August 2007.

Though they successfully germinated, the plants didn't last long.

"The seedlings grew for a short period, and then they got no taller and died," said Chris Brown, a plant biologist at North Carolina State University.

The team strongly suspected that the problem was not microgravity, per se, but adverse growing conditions, such as a lack of air circulation, Brown said.

"We think they died due to a lack of air flow," he said.

The space plants were contained in special chambers designed by BioServe Space Technologies, a non-profit NASA-sponsored research center at the University of Colorado at Boulder. The chambers contained a solution of nutrients that would feed the plants as long as there was moisture present.

While the space experiment was a bust, the transgenic seeds blossomed on Earth, producing plants that could survive severe drought.

"Three weeks without water will kill most tomato plants. The transgencis came back, which is really cool and has huge implications for Earth agriculture," Brown told Discovery News.

Khodakovskaya, a plant physiologist who now operates her own lab at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, says she has since developed a new breed that in addition to tolerating draught, produces a leafy plant with fruit high in lycopene, an antioxidant. Researchers believe antioxidants are important in preventing cancer and other chronic diseases.

Click for related content
Scientists unveil chocolate-fueled race car
Color-shifting cuttlefish inspire TV screens
Spider silk-metal combo makes for tough tool

Khodakovskaya and colleagues at Arkansas State University and the University of Central Arkansas are preparing to patent their technology, which involves adding some new genes to the basic tomato.

The fruit, however, has yet to be put to the ultimate test — taste.

"When we grow the plants we use some chemicals, and I was advised not to eat it," Khodakovskaya told Discovery News.

© 2009 Discovery Channel

interesting........ :0)

Just how realistic is the robotics technology seen in "Terminator Salvation?" We chatted with honest-to-god roboticist Daniel H. Wilson to find out.
View related photos

Let’s pretend it’s the not-so-distant future. There you are, standing in the pile of rubble that used to be your home, minding your own business, when suddenly you’re confronted by a hulking humanoid robot with glowing red eyes.

While this robot may not be shouting “Kill! Kill! Kill!” — thanks to its body language and the whirring saws it has where its hands should be, you’re about 99.999 percent sure that’s precisely what it has in mind.

The question then becomes, should you:

Story continues below ↓
advertisement | your ad here


A) Punch the robot with your mighty human fists
B) Call it hurtful names like “lug-nuts-for-brains” or “rusty arse” or "inferior cybernetic unit with outdated software"
C) Throw mud in its eyes

If you chose answer C, then give yourself a pat on the back. You’re well on your way to surviving a robot uprising.

With the new “Terminator Salvation” film in theaters, robots running amok seem to be on everyone’s minds (or at least on my mind). And so I consulted one of humanity’s foremost experts on the subject — Daniel H. Wilson, an honest-to-god roboticist (who got his Ph.D. from the Robotics Institute at Carnegie Mellon University no less) and the author of the book “ How to Survive a Robot Uprising.”

If the apocalyptic future depicted in “Terminator Salvation” were to actually come true, Wilson’s book contains all sorts of helpful advice — advice you'll find in sections titled “How to Spot a Robot Mimicking a Human” and “How to Fool a Thermal Imaging Target Tracker” and “How to Treat a Laser Wound.”

Richard Horne/Bloomsbury
Surely John Connor and the crew from "Terminator Salvation" could have used a copy of "How to Survive a Robot Uprising." The book offers tips on how to do things like stop a giant walking robot.

While Wilson takes a cheeky approach to talking about robots overthrowing their meatbag masters, he does believe that humanoid robots will one day be used to fight our wars and his book offers an approachable look at real-world robotics through the looking glass of popular culture.

When it comes to triumphing over a good robot gone bad, for example, he points out that “sensors are by far the most vulnerable, exposed parts of any robot.” And so if you want to blind an attacking automaton, “a handful of dirt, mud or water will suffice.”

He also points out, “It’s hard for a robot to wipe mud from its eyes when it has whirring buzz saws for hands.”

After checking out “Terminator Salvation,” I checked in with Wilson to get his roboticist perspective on the film. Here’s what he had to say about real-world robotics gone Hollywood and the likelihood of a robo-pocolypse ever happening. (A quick warning: This discussion contains spoilers aplenty.)

Did the first “Terminator” movie affect you as a kid and your interest in robotics?
It affected me a lot as a kid to see a humanoid robot and to see inside it. You really saw all the tendons and the joints and the skull and the whole skeleton of the thing. It really gave you the impression that this was a real walking, talking, murdering wind-up toy. And then I started thinking, well how would that really work? Can we really do that?

I think that “Terminator,” even though it has robots that kill everybody, has been central in helping a lot of people get interested in learning about robots.

As a roboticist, what did you think of “Terminator Salvation”?
I loved it. People were sweating it for technical accuracy and that blew me away because the movie was incredibly technically accurate from my perspective.

Discuss on Newsvine
What would you do to survive a robot uprising?

Obviously it's a movie, but what seemed realistic based on what you know about robotics today?
The behavior of the robots I found to be very accurate. The T-600 attacking John Connor, I thought that was quite realistic. It looked like a piece of machinery. You could see the pieces moving.

I also liked the part where another T-600 got caught in a snare and was hanging upside down by its foot. It was just so logical the way it behaved — it hung upside down, it was able to target the humans, it shot at them but it wasn’t able to be as accurate. When the humans were gone, it realized that it had a different problem — that it was trapped upside down. It saw that its foot was the problem and it shot its foot off. It was just basically executing a solution to a problem.

Anna Wilson
In “How to Survive a Robot Uprising,” Daniel Wilson, Ph.D., uses real-world robot science to examine a fictional future in which androids rebel.

Also, I’ve got to mention the robots in the water. Those are similar to modular robots — they’re made out of individual modules that are connected together and are able to execute different gait patterns. For example, snakes don’t all travel in the same way. There’s side-winding, there’s inch-worming, there’s your conventional wriggling. There are all these different ways that a modular robot can locomote, and they’re applicable in different situations. They can swim like sea snakes in water, wriggle across rough terrain on land, or even climb trees. (For an example of what he’s talking about, check out this modular snake robot from Carnegie Mellon.)

One non-obvious thing I really did like — did you notice that in the kidnapping scenes people were constantly getting snatched up by these big claws and they were never injured in the least? You know what, that is accurate. If a machine has force sensors in its manipulators, it can — to an incredibly accurate degree — regulate the amount of force it uses. (Check out this article for a peek at just such a robot.)

In the real world today, there’s a lot focus on how we can improve our bodies by incorporating technology into them. So it seemed to me that the cyborg character Marcus Wright was one of the more “realistic” things about the movie.
Absolutely. I think the whole course of human history has been marching toward that. As a species we are tool makers and we use our tools to increase our own abilities. You can’t hammer a nail in with your fist, so you use a tool for that. For us to incorporate these tools into our bodies is nothing new. Prosthetics have been around for literally thousands of years.

To sort of see the logical conclusion of that in “Terminator Salvation” was exciting. It tapped into something really ancient and really human. Also, it’s interesting to have that character say, “What am I?” This guy doesn’t know whether he’s human anymore and, you know, honestly that’s something that’s going to be affecting us in our real lives not too long from now.

Knowing what you know about robots, what didn’t work for you in the movie?
I was a little thrown by the very end and by the presence of a human heart in the cyborg. Although it was an infiltration unit — from a tactical perspective, it makes no sense to put a vulnerable beating heart right in the front chest cavity of an otherwise indestructible robot.

Also, the giant humanoid robot didn’t make any sense to me. First of all, it snuck up on them somehow. That thing would be loud and that thing would be smelly. It’s a gigantic machine. Don’t you notice if a cement truck is backing up to your house?

Click for related content
8 robots that terrify us
The cyborgs among us
Why ‘Terminator’ is so creepy

And something I have to register a formal complaint about — a Terminator should never, ever close in on its human target, get a hold of its human target and then throw its human target as far away from itself as it can. In what universe does it make sense to be big and slow, to close in your prey and then to hurl your prey across the room where it will inevitably get up and run away again?

Can you tell me some of the reasons why you think a robot uprising won’t happen in the future?
Any technology can be used for good or evil. So human beings will use robots to kill each other. And human beings will use robots to save each other from life threatening disease, from dangerous situations and all kinds of stuff. But a robot uprising is different because you’re talking about the machine itself deciding to attack humanity. I just don’t see that happening.

What that entails is solving something called the “strong AI” problem — creating a machine with human-level or better intelligence. If you solve that problem, you’ve also by definition solved every other artificial intelligence problem there is. That is really, really hard. And in fiction it often just spontaneously happens. In the “Terminator” films, Skynet just “comes online” magically. There’s just no indication to me that this could suddenly happen without the intense scrutiny of some of the smartest human scientists on the planet.

The second thing that has to happen — which I don’t think will ever happen — is the AI is going to have to decide that it wants to wipe out humanity. If I’m a super human intellect, why am I going to destroy the most interesting phenomenon that exists in the solar system and maybe the universe? You can study the composition of all the rocks in the asteroid belt and you can map out all the mating rituals of every flatworm and reptile and bird on the planet, but honestly I don’t think there’ s anything more interesting than human beings. And if I was a superhuman intellect, I’d want to keep them around.

Story continues below ↓
advertisement | your ad here


Can you give me any reason why a robot uprising could actually happen in the future?
Human beings are not that great at looking at long-term outcomes. We do things like introduce rabbits to Australia. Somebody decided that it would be fun to hunt rabbits and they introduced them to Australia and they multiplied to the extent that they basically covered the content and killed countless indigenous species.

Discuss on Newsvine
What would you do to survive a robot uprising?

We often see our plans reproduce and get out of control. So, there could be a situation through human stupidity in which we create some kind of robotic technology that gets out of hand.

If I suddenly found myself in the world envisioned by "Terminator Salvation," what three pieces of survival advice would you give me?

Richard Horne/Bloomsbury
The number one rule of human-robot warfare: Go for the sensors

One, always, always go for the sensors. Kyle Reese obeyed the number one rule of human-robot warfare when he neatly wedged a piece of rebar into the brain stem of an attacking Terminator. The maneuver damaged the Terminator's inertial measurement unit and disoriented it long enough for the humans to escape.

Two, stay off the radio. Whether the signal is encrypted or not, it is exceedingly easy to track the source of a transmitted radio signal. If you have to send a communication, do it while you're on the move and keep your message brief. If you can, let John Connor deliver the long-winded fireside chats, while you high-tail it for the hills.

Three, know your enemy. Clearly, Terminators excel at killing other Terminators. Learning to hack into or reverse-engineer the robots is a key survival skill in the future. If John Connor had bothered to perform even a cursory autopsy of the cyborg Marcus Wright instead of hoisting him dramatically from chains, he would have found an inhibitor chip placed conveniently on the back of his head.