Saturday, July 12, 2008

Looking at Hydrogen to Replace Gasoline in Our Cars

Can hydrogen be generated and stored on a practical scale to replace our oil economy?

The jury is still out on whether hydrogen will ultimately be our environmental savior, replacing the fossil fuels responsible for global warming and various nagging forms of pollution. Two main hurdles stand in the way of mass production and widespread consumer adoption of hydrogen “fuel cell” vehicles: the still high cost of producing fuel cells, and the lack of a hydrogen refueling network.

Reining in manufacturing costs of fuel cell vehicles is the first major issue the automakers are addressing. While several have fuel cell prototype vehicles on the road—Toyota and Honda are even leasing them to the public in Japan and California—they are spending upwards of $1 million to produce each one due to the advanced technology involved and low production runs. Toyota hopes to reduce its costs per fuel cell vehicle to around $50,000 by 2015, which would make such cars economically viable in the marketplace. On this side of the Pacific, General Motors plans to sell hydrogen-powered vehicles in the U.S. by 2010.

Another problem is the lack of hydrogen refueling stations. Major oil companies have been loathe to set up hydrogen tanks at existing gas stations for many reasons ranging from safety to cost to lack of demand. But obviously the oil companies are also trying to keep customers interested in their highly profitable bread-and-butter, gasoline. A more likely scenario is what is emerging in California, where some 38 independent hydrogen fuel stations are located around the state as part of a network created by the non-profit California Fuel Cell Partnership, a consortium of automakers, state and federal agencies and other parties interested in furthering hydrogen fuel cell technologies.

The benefits of ditching fossil fuels for hydrogen are many, or course. Burning fossil fuels like coal, natural gas and oil to heat and cool our buildings and run our vehicles takes a heavy toll on the environment, contributing significantly to both local problems like elevated particulate levels and global ones like a warming climate. The only by-product of running a hydrogen-powered fuel cell is oxygen and a trickle of water, neither of which will cause any harm to human health or the environment.

But right now 95 percent of the hydrogen available in the U.S. is either extracted from fossil fuels or made using electrolytic processes powered by fossil fuels, thus negating any real emissions savings or reduction in fossil fuel usage. Only if renewable energy sources—solar, wind and others—can be harnessed to provide the energy to process hydrogen fuel can the dream of a truly clean hydrogen fuel be realized.

Stanford University researchers in 2005 assessed the environmental effects of three different hydrogen sources: coal, natural gas, and water electrolysis powered by wind. They concluded that we’d lower greenhouse gas emissions more by driving gasoline/electric hybrid cars than by driving fuel cell cars run on hydrogen from coal. Hydrogen made using natural gas would fare a little bit better in terms of pollution output, while making it from wind power would a slam-dunk for the environment.

Monday, June 09, 2008

10 Amazing Brain Facts


What part of you is only 1% to 3% of your body's mass, yet uses 20% of all the oxygen you breathe? Your brain! Here are ten more brain facts.

- Your brain needs a continuous supply of oxygen. A 10 minute loss of oxygen will usually cause significant neural damage. Cold can lengthen this time, which is why cold-water drowning victims have been revived after as nuch as 40 minutes - without brain damage.

- Your brain uses a fifth of all your blood. It needs it to keep up with the heavy metabolic demands of its neurons. It needs not only the glucose that is delivered, but of course, the oxygen.

- Your brain feels no pain. There are no nerves that register pain within the brain itself. Because of this, neurosurgeons can probe the brain while a patient is conscious (what fun!). By doing this, they can use feedback from the patient to identify important regions, such as those used for speech, or visualization.

- The cerebellum is sometimes called the "little brain," and weighs about 150 grams (a little over five ounces). Found at the lower back side of your brain, you need your cerebellum to maintain posture, to walk, and to perform any coordinated movements. It may also play a role in your sense of smell.

- The human brain weighs an average of a little over three pounds, or 1.4 kilograms. Albert Einstein's brain may have been smaller than yours, because he was smaller than average. There is a general correlation between body size and the size of our brains.

- An elephant's brain is huge - about six times as large as a human brain. However, in relation to body size, humans have the largest brain of all the animals, averaging about 2% of body weight. A cat's brain? It weighs about one ounce, a little over 1% of body weight.

- There are about 100,000 miles of blood vessels in the brain. If they were stretched out (there's a nice thought!) they would circle the earth more than four times.

- If you have an average sized brain, you have about 100 billion neurons up there. You'll be happy about that after reading the next item.

- Approximately 85,000 neocortical neurons are lost each day in your brain. Fortunately, his goes unnoticed due to the built-in redundancies and the fact that even after three years this loss adds up to less than 1% of the total. Oh, and look at the next item.

- Recent research proves that your brain continues to produce new neurons throughout your life. It also proves that it does so in response to stimulation (do those brainpower exercises). Scientists refer to this as brain plasticity or neuro-plasticity. You may find this one the most encouraging of these brain facts.

Where is everybody?


With this essay by Steven Soter, Astrobiology Magazine presents the first in our series of 'Gedanken', or thought, experiments - musings by noted scientists on scientific mysteries in a series of "what if" scenarios. Gedanken experiments, which have been used for hundreds of years by scientists and philosophers to ponder thorny problems, rely on the power of one's imagination to project these scenarios to logical conclusions. They do not involve lab equipment or, often, even experimental data. They can be thought of as focused daydreams. Yet, as in the famous case of Einstein's Gedanken experiments about what it would be like to hitch a ride on a light wave, they have often led to important scientific breakthroughs.

Soter is Scientist-in-Residence in the Center for Ancient Studies at New York University, where he teaches a seminar on Scientific Thinking and Speculation, and a Research Associate in the Department of Astrophysics at the American Museum of Natural History.

In this essay, Soter examines the Drake Equation, which asks how many technically advanced civilizations exist in our galaxy. He also looks at the Fermi Paradox, which questions why, if there are other technological civilizations nearby, we haven't heard from them.

If civilizations exist in our galaxy with levels of technology at least equal to our own, we might be able to detect some of them using radio telescopes. And if civilizations exist with technologies far in advance of our own, we might expect them to have colonized millions of habitable worlds in the Milky Way, and even to have visited our own planet. Yet there is no evidence in the astronomical, geological, archaeological, or historical records that extraterrestrial civilizations exist or that visitors from other worlds have ever been to Earth. Does that mean, as some have concluded, that ours is the only civilization in the galaxy? Or could there be a natural self-regulating mechanism that limits the intensive colonization of other worlds?

In 1961 radio astronomer Frank Drake devised an equation to express how the hypothetical number of observable civilizations in our galaxy should depend on a wide range of astronomical and biological factors, such as the number of habitable planets per star, and the fraction of inhabited worlds that give rise to intelligent life. The Drake Equation has led to serious studies and encouraged the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). It has also provoked ridicule and hostility. Novelist Michael Crichton recently denounced the equation as "literally meaningless," incapable of being tested, and therefore "not science." The Drake equation, he said, also opened the door to other forms of what he called "pernicious garbage" in the name of science, including the use of mathematical climate models to characterize global warming.

Crichton rightly pointed out that any numerical "answers" produced by the Drake Equation can be no more than guesses, since most of the terms in the equation are quantitatively unknown by many orders of magnitude. But he is utterly wrong to claim that the equation is "meaningless." An equation describes how the elements of a problem are logically related, whether or not we know their numerical values. Astronomers understand perfectly well that the Drake Equation cannot prove anything. Instead, we regard it as the most useful way to organize our ignorance of a difficult subject by breaking it down into manageable parts. This kind of analysis is standard, and a valued technique in scientific thinking. As new observations and insights emerge, the Drake Equation can be modified as needed or even replaced altogether. But it provides the necessary place to start.

When Drake first proposed his equation, we had no way to estimate any of its terms beyond the first one, representing the rate of star formation in our galaxy. Then in 1995, astronomers began to discover planets in orbits around other stars. These results now promise to sharpen our estimates for the second term in the equation, denoting the number of habitable worlds per star. Who knows what unforeseen discoveries will tell us about the other terms in the equation?

In Classical antiquity, when Aristarchus conceived the heliocentric view of the solar system and Democritus developed an atomic theory of matter, they had no possible way to test their ideas. The necessary observational tools and data would not exist for another two thousand years. Of course, the Crichtons of antiquity denounced such speculations as pernicious. But when the time finally came, the ancient ideas were still there, quietly waiting to inspire and encourage Copernicus and Galileo, and the pioneers of modern atomic theory, who took the first steps to test the theories. It may take centuries, but eventually the Drake Equation and all its elements will be testable.

We can express the Drake Equation in several ways, all of which are more or less equivalent. Here is one form:
N = Rs nh fl fi fc L

where N is the number of civilizations in our galaxy, expressed as the product of six factors: Rs is the rate of star formation, nh is the number of habitable worlds per star, fl is the fraction of habitable worlds on which life arises, fi is the fraction of inhabited worlds with intelligent life, fc is the fraction of intelligent life forms that produce civilizations, and L is the average lifetime of such civilizations.

The rate of star formation in our galaxy is roughly ten per year. We can define habitable worlds conservatively as those with liquid water on the surface. Many more worlds probably have liquid water only below the surface, but any subterranean life on such worlds would not be likely to produce an observable civilization. Recent discoveries of other planetary systems suggest that habitable worlds are common and that nh is at least one such planet in a hundred stars.

The remaining terms in the equation depend on the biology and social development of other worlds, and here we are profoundly ignorant. Our local experience may provide some guidance, however. We know that life on Earth arose almost as soon as conditions allowed - as soon as the crust cooled enough for liquid water to persist. This fact suggests that conditions for the origin of life on other habitable worlds are not restrictive, and that the value of fl is closer to one than to one in a thousand. But that is merely a guess. No one knows how life began on Earth, and we cannot generalize from a single case.

The conditions for intelligent life are probably more restrictive. On Earth this step first required the evolution of complex animals, which began about three billion years after the origin of life, and then the development of brains capable of abstract thought, which took another half billion years. Among the millions of animal species that have lived on Earth, probably only one ever had intelligence sufficient to understand the Drake Equation. This suggests that fi might be a small fraction.

The probability that intelligent life develops a civilization depends on the evolution of organs to manipulate the environment. On Earth, whales and dolphins may well have intelligence sufficient for abstract thought, but they lack the means to make tools. Humans, with dexterous hands, began making tools over a million years ago. Starting about ten thousand years ago, civilizations based on agriculture arose several times independently, in Mesopotamia, Egypt, China, Mexico, Peru, and New Guinea. This suggests that the value of fc is large, but again we should not generalize from the experience of only one intelligent and manipulative species.

We now come to the most intriguing term, the average lifetime L of a civilization. The Drake Equation assumes that, whatever the other factors, the number of civilizations presently in our galaxy is simply proportional to their average lifetime. The longer they live, the more civilizations exist at any given time. But what is the life expectancy of a civilization? On Earth, dozens of major civilizations have flourished and died within the last ten thousand years. Their average lifetime is about four centuries. Few if any civilizations on Earth have ever lasted as long as two thousand years.

History and archaeology show that the collapse of any given civilization causes only a temporary gap in the record of civilizations on Earth. Other civilizations eventually arise, either from the ruins of the collapsed one or independently and elsewhere. Those civilizations also eventually collapse, but new ones continue to emerge.

For example, in the eastern Mediterranean at the end of the Bronze Age, the prevailing Mycenaean civilization suffered widespread catastrophic collapse around 1100 BC. During a few centuries of "darkness" that followed, the population was illiterate, impoverished and relatively small -- but not extinct. Classical civilization gradually arose and flourished, and gave rise to the Roman Empire, which itself collapsed in the fifth century AD. Another period of impoverished Dark Ages followed, but eventually trade and literacy revived, leading to the Renaissance. Each revival of civilization was stimulated in part by the survival of relics from the past.

Our global technological civilization, with its roots in the Mediterranean Bronze Age, is now arguably headed for collapse. But that will not be the end of civilization on Earth -- not as long as the human species survives. And the biological lifetime of our species is likely to be several million years, even if we do our worst.

We should therefore distinguish between the longevity of a single occurrence of civilization and the aggregate lifetime of a sequence of civilizations. Almost all discussions of the Drake Equation have overlooked this distinction and therefore significantly underestimated L.

The proper value of L is not the average duration of a single episode of civilization on a planet, which for Earth is about 400 years. Rather, L is much larger, being the sum of recurrent episodes of civilization, and constitutes a substantial fraction of the biological lifetime of the intelligent species. The average species lifetime for mammals is a few million years. Suppose the human species lasts another million years and our descendants have recurrent episodes of civilization for more than 10 percent of that time. Then the average effective lifetime of civilization on Earth will exceed 100,000 years, or 250 times the duration of a single episode. Other factors being the same, this generally neglected consideration should increase the expected number of civilizations in our galaxy by at least a hundredfold.

While the aggregate lifetime of civilization on a planet may be only a hundred thousand years, we should allow the possibility that a small minority of intelligent life forms, say one in a thousand, has managed to use their intelligence and technology to survive for stellar evolutionary timescales -- that is, on the order of a billion years. In that case, the average effective lifetime of civilizations in our galaxy would be about a million years.

If we now insert numbers in the Drake Equation that represent the wide range of plausible estimates for the various terms, we find that the number N of civilizations in our galaxy could range anywhere from a few thousand to about one in ten thousand. The latter (pessimistic) case is equivalent to finding no more than one civilization in ten thousand galaxies, so that ours would be the only one in the Milky Way. In the former (optimistic) case, the nearest civilization might be close enough for us to detect its radio signals. Estimates for N thus range all over the map. While this exasperates critics who demand concrete answers from science, it does not invalidate the conceptual power of the Drake Equation.

If many civilizations have arisen in our galaxy, we might expect that some of them sent out colonies, and some of those colonies sent out still more colonies. The resulting waves of colonization would have spread out across the Milky Way in a time less than the age of our galaxy. So where are all those alien civilizations? Why haven't we seen them? The physicist Enrico Fermi first posed the question in 1950. Many answers have since been proposed, including (1) ours is the first and only civilization to arise in the Milky Way, (2) the aliens exist but are hiding, and (3) they have already been here and we are their descendants. In his book Where is Everybody? Stephen Webb considers fifty proposed solutions to the so-called "Fermi Paradox" but he leaves out the most thought-provoking explanation of all, one that I call the Cosmic Quarantine Hypothesis.

In 1981, cosmologist Edward Harrison suggested a powerful self-regulating mechanism that would neatly resolve the paradox. Any civilization bent on the intensive colonization of other worlds would be driven by an expansive territorial impulse. But such an aggressive nature would be unstable in combination with the immense technological powers required for interstellar travel. Such a civilization would self-destruct long before it could reach for the stars.

The unrestrained territorial drive that served biological evolution so well for millions of years becomes a severe liability for a species once it acquires powers more than sufficient for its self-destruction. The Milky Way may well contain civilizations more advanced than ours, but they must have passed through a filter of natural selection that eliminates, by war or other self-inflicted environmental catastrophes, those civilizations driven by aggressive expansion. That is, the acquisition of powerful technology ultimately selects for wisdom.

However, suppose an alien civilization somehow finds a way to launch the aggressive colonization of other planetary systems while avoiding self-destruction. It would only take one such case, and our galaxy would have been overrun by the reproducing colonies of the civilization. But Harrison proposed a plausible backup mechanism that comes into play in the event that the self-regulating control mechanism fails. The most evolved civilizations in the galaxy, he suggested, would notice any upstart world that showed signs of launching a campaign of galactic conquest, and they would nip it in the bud. Advanced intelligence might regard any prospect of the exponential diffusion throughout the Milky Way of self-replicating colonies very much as we regard the outbreak of a deadly viral epidemic. They would have good reason, and presumably the ability, to suppress it as a measure of galactic hygiene.

There may be many highly evolved civilizations in our galaxy, and some of them may even be the interstellar colonies of others. They may control technologies vastly more powerful than ours, applied to purposes we can scarcely imagine. But Harrison's regulatory mechanisms should preclude any relentless wave of colonization from overrunning and cannibalizing the Milky Way.

By most appearances, the dominant civilization on our planet is of the expansive territorial type, and is thus headed for self-destruction. Only if we can intelligently regulate our growth-obsessed and self-destructive tendencies is our civilization likely to survive long enough to achieve interstellar communication.

Steven Soter is Scientist-in-Residence in the Center for Ancient Studies at New York University, where he teaches a seminar on Scientific Thinking and Speculation, and a Research Associate in the Department of Astrophysics at the American Museum of Natural History.

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

My Gemstone is Amber

Your Gemstone is Amber

Creative, happy, and logical.
You shine in any intellectual endeavor

Your Favorite Color BLUE Says About You:

What Your Favorite Color Blue Says About You:

Emotional --- Affected --- Sensitive
Peaceful --- Tranquil --- Connected
Spiritual --- Experimental --- Deep

I'm an Apple Mac

You Are a Mac

You are creative, stylish, and super trendy.
You demand the best - even if it costs an arm and a leg.

My Love Song Is

Your Love Song Is

Wonderwall by Oasis

"I'm sure you've heard it all before
But you never really had a doubt
I don't believe that anybody feels
The way I do about you now"

You know what you want - but does that person want you?

I Should Rule Jupiter

You Should Rule Jupiter

Huge and hot, Jupiter is a quickly turning planet with short days and intense gravity.

You are perfect to rule Jupiter, because you are both dominant and kind.
You have great strength and confidence, but you never abuse your power.

You are always right. Even if you make mistakes, you compensate for them... before anyone knows it.
Headstrong and ambitious, you always have a goal in mind. You are optimistic and believe thing things will always work out.

My Expression Number is 11




Your Expression Number is 11



You tend to be associated with idealistic concepts and spiritual issues.

You have high potentials that are somewhat difficult to live up to.

You have very strong intuition and you can be a bit psychic at times.



Highly inspirational, you can lead merely by your own example.

You have an inborn inner strength and awareness that helps you advise others.

Although you have what it takes for a successful career, you belong outside the business world.



Overly sensitive and temperamental, you tend to have a lot of nervous tension.

You dream a lot, so much so that you may be more of a dreamer than a doer.

Fantasy and reality tend to get intermingled for you, and that leads to impracticality.

My Element is Air.

Your Element Is Air

You dislike conflict, and you've been able to rise above the angst of the world.
And when things don't go your way, you know they'll blow over quickly.

Easygoing, you tend to find joy from the simple things in life.
You roll with the punches, and as a result, your life is light and cheerful.

You find it easy to adapt to most situations, and you're an open person.
With you, what you see is what you get... and people love that!

I'm a Mermaid.

You Are a Mermaid

You are a total daydreamer, and people tend to think you're flakier than you actually are.
While your head is often in the clouds, you'll always come back to earth to help someone in need.
Beyond being a caring person, you are also very intelligent and rational.
You understand the connections of the universe better than almost anyone else.

You are Kind of Honest

You Are A Little Honest

Sometimes you do the right thing, but not often
You prefer to look out for yourself most of the time
But sometimes honesty does get the better of you
Here's hoping you answered this quiz honestly

What's My Power Element?

Your Power Element is Metal

Your power colors: white, gold, and silver

Your energy: contracting

Your season: fall

You are persistent (and maybe even a little bit stubborn).
If you see something you want, you go for it.
You have a lot of strength, and it's difficult to get you down.
Very logical, you tend to analyze everything going on in your life.

Am I Psychic?

You Are 60% Psychic

You are pretty psychic.
While you aren't Miss Cleo, you've got a little ESP going on.
And although you're sometimes off on your predictions...
You're more often right than wrong
So go with your instincts - you know more than you think

What I think Of My Friends

What You Really Think Of Your Friends

Hiran is your soulmate.

You truly love Ikshula

You consider Lasith your true friend.

You know that Saranga is always thinking of you.

You'll remember Hansanee for the rest of your life.

You secretly think Yasiru is creative, charming, and a bit too dramatic at times.

You secretly think that Themiya and Chathura is colorful, impulsive, and a total risk taker.

You secretly think that Sarukkali is loyal and trustworthy to you. And that Sarukkali changes lovers faster than underwear.

You secretly think Themiya is shy and nonconfrontational. And that Themiya has a hidden internet romance.

My Seduction Style: The Natural




Your Seduction Style: The Natural



You don't really try to seduce people... it just seems to happen.

Fun loving and free spirited, you bring out the inner child in people.

You are spontaneous, sincere, and unpretentious - a hard combo to find!

People drop their guard around you, and find themselves falling fast.

My Cell Phone Etiquette is 44% Bad, 56% Good

Your Cell Phone Etiquette is 44% Bad, 56% Good

Your cell phone manners are simply okay. Sometimes you can be very considerate.
But when you are in the middle of an important conversation, all rules go out the window!

What Sould I Be Studying?

Your Learning Style: Practical and Cooperative

You like to test out what you learn, and you excel when you can jump right in and try something.

You Should Study:

Dentistry
Environmental Science
Fashion Merchandising
Interior Design
International Studies
Marketing
Medicine
Music
Nursing
Criminal Justice
Physical Therapy

Am I in Love? Yes, You Are.

How You Are In Love

You take a while to fall in love with someone. Trust takes time.

You give completely and unconditionally in relationships.

You tend to get very attached when you're with someone. You want to see your love all the time.

You're secretly hoping your partner will change for you.

You stay in love for a long time, even if you aren't loved back. When you fall, you fall hard.

I Have Changed 44% in 10 Years!

You've Changed 44% in 10 Years

You've done a good job changing with the times, but deep down, you're still the same person.
You're clothes, job, and friends may have changed some - but it hasn't changed you.

Am I Scary? Nope!

You Are Not Scary

Everyone loves you. Isn't that sweet?

Who Was I In a Past Life?

In a Past Life...

You Were: An Albino Magician.

Where You Lived: Ukraine.

How You Died: In Childbirth.

What Should I Be When I Grow Up?

You Should Be a Doctor

You are practical, sharp, and very intuitive.
Optimistic and energetic, you are a problem solver who doesn't get discouraged easily.
You are also quite compassionate and caring. You make people feel hopeful.
You're highly adaptable and capable. You do well with almost any curve ball life throws at you.

You do best when you:

- Are always learning new subjects
- Use your knowledge to solve problems

You would also be a good therapist or detective.

Would I be a Cool Parent?

You Will Be a Cool Parent

You seem to naturally know a lot about parenting, and you know what kids need.
You can tell when it's time to let kids off the hook, and when it's time to lay down the law.
While your parenting is modern and hip, it's not over the top.
You know that there's nothing cool about a parent who acts like a teenager... or a drill sergeant!

Am I Addicted to the Internet?

You Are 39% Addicted to the Internet

Internet? Please. You're definitely not geeky enough to be that addicted.
You have a full life off your computer - and the internet is just a small pastime.

My Personality quiz

Your Personality Is

Artisan (SP)


You are both grounded and flexible. You adapt well to new situations.
You are playful and free spirited - but you are also dependable and never flaky.

You don't do well in conservative, stuffy situations.
It's probably very hard for you to keep a normal job or stay in school.

You are always up for fun and adventure. Most people are too boring for you.
You take risks and bend the rules. And if things don't work out, you chock it up to life experience.

In love, you tend to take things quickly - but you have a huge problem with commitment.

At work, you need to make your own rules. You're best suited to be an entrepreneur.

With others, you are animated and physical. You prefer doing something with friends to just hanging out.

As far as your looks go, you tend to be buff and in good shape. Your spend more time on your body than your clothes.

On weekends, you need to keep active. From cooking up a storm to running a 5K, you wear yourself out.

You Could Maybe Be a Vegetarian

You Could Maybe Be a Vegetarian

You may think being vegetarian is a great idea, but you don't have all the tools to get started.
Find a local vegetarian group or buy a few vegetarian books.
Even if you don't go completely veggie, you can introduce more vegetarian foods into your diet!

What makes me a good friend.

You Are a Good Friend Because You're Loyal

You stick with your friends no matter what, even if you feel like they're doing the wrong thing.
You believe in letting people figure out their own path in life. It's not your place to interfere.

And part of your loyalty means that you'll do a lot for your friends. You definitely go the extra mile.
You'll even do great things for friends without them asking. After all, that's what friendship is all about.

You are truly a friend for life. And you have friends you've known since you were a kid.
Your friends can count on you to do a favor, remember a birthday, or just be there to listen.

Your friends need you most when: They can't turn to anyone else

You really can't be friends with: Fickle people who change friends quickly

Your friendship quote: "Friendship doubles your joys, and divides your sorrows."

What colour car should I drive?

You Should Drive a Black Car

You're the type of driver who's totally dominant and even a bit aggressive.
You see the road as a "dog eat dog" world... and you're not about to get eaten!
You like to drive a vehicle that conveys power. Big engine. Big price tag.
You rule the road - and you like everyone to know it.

What does my birthday means.

Your Birthdate: June 12

You're a dynamic, charismatic person who's possibly headed for fame.
You tend to charm strangers easily. And you usually can get what you want from them.
Verbally talented, you tend to persuade people with your speaking and writing.
You are affectionate and loving, but it's hard for you to commit to any one relationship.

Your strength: Your charm

Your weakness: Your extreme manipulation tactics

Your power color: Indigo

Your power symbol: Four leaf clover

Your power month: December

Sunday, January 27, 2008

A good hearted friend!


Hi everyone from Yahoo Answers and etc, this is my new friend...I had him for about 3 hours. I helped him to find his mom today! Finally he found his my. (I did actually).

Thanks to everyone who helped me with the question. Thanks! You can see more info here on Yahoo Answers.

Thanks again!
I'm extremely happy!

Sunday, January 13, 2008

First Look: 2009 Cadillac CTS-V

First Look: 2009 Cadillac CTS-V

Cadzilla! Meet the fastest, most powerful Cadillac ever built

By Angus MacKenzie
Photography by Wesley Allison, the manufacturer

This is it. The fastest, most powerful Cadillac ever built. The fastest, most powerful American sedan in history, for that matter. Locked, loaded, and gunning for Europe's heavy-hitting sport sedans-BMW M5, Mercedes-Benz E63 AMG, Audi RS6. Read all that again. Now pinch yourself. No, you're not dreaming. Motown-well, GM at least-has its mojo back. Meet Cadillac's monster new CTS-V. Cadzilla, if you will.Here are the raw numbers: 550 horsepower at 6200 rpm. 550 pound-feet of torque at 4000 rpm. They're only official "estimates," but as the engine under the new CTS-V's power-domed hood is fundamentally the same as the supercharged V-8 that's credited with 620-plus horsepower and at least 600 pound-feet in the hot new Corvette ZR1, you can safely assume the real SAE-certified figures will be close. "I'm confident we'll disappoint nobody with the numbers," says Ed Piatek, the CTS-V's program engineering manager.

There are no performance figures yet, but by way of context, AMG's E63 Benz nails 60 mph in 4.3 seconds. The new CTS-V weighs about the same and has at least 43 more horses and 85 pound-feet more torque. Draw your own conclusions: The car also has been extensively tested on the legendary Nrburgring Nordschliefe, and while insiders are tight-lipped on the actual lap time-for now-they will admit Cadzilla has terrorized factory hotshoes from Munich out on the daunting 13-mile road course. "People who've never been passed by a Cadillac have now had that experience," smiles Piatek.Piatek works for the GM in-house hot-shop, High Performance Vehicle Operations, headed by John Heinricy, and was the man tasked with overseeing the transformation of the COTY-winning CTS into Cadzilla. He had good raw material to work with: Unlike the previous model, the new CTS was engineered from the outset with the high-performance V-series model in mind, with extra stiffening and strengthening built in. "That was a lesson we learned with the first CTS-V," says Piatek. "If you start with this [idea] going in, there may be a small mass penalty on the base car, but there's less cost and tooling needed to do the V."

As a result, the basic CTS body structure is little altered. Most of the changes that have been made-mainly around the front and rear suspension cradles and the suspension links-are purely to handle the much higher cornering loads induced by the specially developed 19-inch Michelin Pilot Sport 2 tires and the prodigious torque output from the engine. On that last point, everything rear of the front transmission flange has been beefed up. There's a larger-diameter prop shaft, and asymmetric halfshafts (one side is a 55mm-diameter unit, the other 35mm) to help reduce wheelhop under full power launches).


Supercharged 6.2-liter V8 is closely related to Corvette ZR1 engine and pumps out 550 horses and 550 pound-feet.
Suede-like finish on steering wheel and shifter, Recaro seats, black trim. CTS-V cabin means business.

Galaxy evolution in cyber universe


Scientists at the University of Chicago have bolstered the case for a popular scenario of the big bang theory that neatly explains the arrangement of galaxies throughout the universe. Their supercomputer simulation shows how dark matter, an invisible material of unknown composition, herded luminous matter in the universe from its initial smooth state into the cosmic web of galaxies and galaxy clusters that populate the universe.
Previous studies by other researchers had already verified the main features of this scenario, called the cold dark matter model. The Chicago team further extended this work by comparing the results of their supercomputer simulations to the newest, most detailed astronomical observations available today. They found an excellent fit, and they did so without basing their simulations on a lot of complex assumptions.

"The model we use is really, really simple," said Andrey Kravtsov, Associate Professor in Astronomy & Astrophysics. "We want to see how well this framework can do with a minimum number of assumptions."

A paper co-authored by Kravtsov, Charlie Conroy and Risa Wechsler describing these findings will be published in the June 20 issue of the Astrophysical Journal. The research was funded by a grant from the National Science Foundation, with additional support from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Simulations that Kravtsov's team conducted two years ago had predicted that galaxies of different luminosity or brightness would cluster differently when the universe was young than they do today. The team's Astrophysical Journal paper verifies that prediction and shows that similar differences appear in the recent data.

"In the early stages of evolution of the universe, each galaxy has a high probability of having a close neighbor of similar luminosity," Kravtsov said, much more so than galaxies today. "That was what was predicted and that's what the observations now seem to show us."

The data that Kravtsov's team compared to its simulations came from the Deep Extragalactic Evolutionary Probe 2 (DEEP2) survey, and from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey.

Using the Keck 10-meter telescopes in Hawaii, DEEP2 took detailed observations of how galaxies were clustered seven billion years ago, when the universe was approximately half its current age. The Sloan Survey, meanwhile, provided additional data regarding galaxy clustering from more recent epochs in the history of the universe.

"We essentially have data on the distribution of galaxies over most of the evolution of the universe, and the data are accurate," Kravtsov said. "Although the measurements at earlier epochs have larger errors, due to smaller data sets, their accuracy and power to constrain theoretical models is quite remarkable."

The Chicago scientists based their supercomputer simulations on the assumption that galaxies form in the center of dark-matter halos.

According to this scheme, gravity causes the dark matter in these regions to collapse into halos. These halos provide a central location where normal matter consisting of hydrogen, helium and a small amount of heavier elements would collect in gaseous form. Once this gas had cooled and condensed, it achieved sufficient density for star formation to begin on a galactic scale.

When the Chicago team compared the distribution of galaxies in its cyber universe to the real one, "that scheme turned out to work extremely well," Kravtsov said. "It wasn't guaranteed that it would actually work so well in reproducing the data."

Some fields of astrophysics are less fortunate: they have a large body of data but no way to explain it. "The data just kind of hang there. Nobody quite understands what it's telling us or how to interpret it."

But the Chicago simulations further support the idea that the universe behaves the way the cold dark matter scenario tells them it should, that galaxies tend to form in high-density regions of dark matter.

"We understand the distribution of these dark-matter halos, and the implication of this analysis is that we also understand how the properties of these halos are related to galaxy luminosity, how bright the galaxy is," Kravtsov said.

Brighter galaxies also are found in more pronounced large-scale structures. "If you look at fainter galaxies, their distribution becomes more diffuse. We can still see structure, but it's not as pronounced."

Additional data continues to become available. For example, the Sloan Survey has gone beyond mapping the galaxies to include measurements of the dark matter that surrounds them. And other new, high-quality data regarding the distribution of galaxies from the very early stages in the evolution of the universe are becoming available. The first comparisons of the theory's predictions with that data indicate good agreement over the span of about 12 billion years, Kravtsov said.

NASA's Galaxy Evolution Explorer explained:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/jpl/missions/galex.html

Robotics: Ant Navigation

I found this cool invention on the net. So I Copy Pasted it here for you.
Next time you find yourself lost despite having a map and satellite navigation, spare a thought for the unfortunate ant that must take regular trips home to avoid losing its way. Dr Markus Knaden, from the University of Zurich, will report that a visit back to the nest is essential for ants to reset their navigation equipment and avoid getting lost on foraging trips. "Knowledge about path integration and landmark learning gained from our experiments with ants has already been incorporated in autonomous robots. Including a 'reset' of the path integrator at a significant position could make the orientation of the robot even more reliable", says Dr Knaden who will speak on Tuesday 4th April at the Society for Experimental Biology's Main Annual Meeting in Canterbury, Kent [session A4]

Ants that return from foraging journeys can use landmarks to find their way home, but in addition they have an internal backup system that allows them to create straight shortcuts back to the nest even when the outbound part of the forage run was very winding. This backup system is called the 'path integrator' and constantly reassesses the ant's position using an internal compass and measure of distance travelled. Knaden and his colleagues hypothesised that because the path integrator is a function of the ant's brain, it is prone to accumulate mistakes with time. That is, unless it is regularly reset to the original error-free template; which is exactly what the researchers have found.

When they moved ants from a feeder back to a position either within the nest or next to the nest, they found that only those ants that were placed in the nest were able to set off again in the right direction to the feeder. Those left outside the nest set off in a feeder-to-home direction (i.e. away from the nest in completely the opposite direction to the source of food) as if they still had the idea of 'heading home' in their brains. "We think that it must be the specific behaviour of entering the nest and releasing the food crumb that is necessary to reset the path integrator", says Knaden. "We have designed artificial nests where we can observe the ants after they return from their foraging trips in order to test this."

What next? The group plan to study other ant species that live in landmark rich areas. "Maybe we will find that such ants rate landmarks more highly and use them, not the nest, to reset the path integrator", explains Knaden.

Wednesday, January 09, 2008

Which is the best day?


The constant demands of office life can make one day seem much like the next. In fact, there is a rhythm to the working week – one that savvy employees can use to their advantage. In a study, psychology professor Debbie Moskowitz of McGill University in Montreal found that “People begin the week all fired up, but as Friday draws nearer they realise they will have to compromise.”

Monday finds office workers more demanding and aggressive, so this is the best day for delegating, organising and setting goals, following your boss’s direction and avoiding conflict.

Tuesday can be the peak day for output and efficiency, although a study by fish4jobs suggests that Tuesday afternoon is the top time for online job-hunting. “We see a spike in traffic just after 3 pm,” says chief executive Joe Slavin.

Wednesday Workers are relaxing into the week, but are not yet exhausted. According to business coach Gladeana McMahon, it’s the best day for creative thinking. “Hold brainstorming meetings and think about the future.”

Thursday Professor Moskowitz thinks “it’s the best day to ask people to do things” because workers are relatively more submissive and open to negotiation. So it might be the best day to ask for a pay rise!

Friday Go carefully – workers take more risks and have more accidents today. It’s a good day to confront colleagues with a grievance, suggests business psychologist Alastair Hamill: “They can come to terms with what you’ve said before seeing you on Monday.”

The Weekend Are you one of those people who manage high stress all week and succumb to illness at weekends? Try exercising on a Friday night to help the transition from work to leisure.