Virtually Dedicated Buzzword Bingo

Once in while I see something written that defies explanation that makes me wonder if the author is joking or is attempting to be serious. I ponder on the source of their confusion. Is this because the author's exposure to the real world has been severely limited not unlike a boy raised by dogs and they simply just do not know better? Perhaps they are set in their ways and they can not help the fact they jut do not get it and as such, a bit jaded? However, as much as I do get a kick out of oxymoron babble on parade, I fear their audience may take them seriously on occasion if the buzzword bingo does get out of control. Sometimes these authors can go ramshackle with the facts, mixing terms that make no sense, yet sound credible but are not. Consider the fragment from a technical blog which leaves me thinking - what???

Voice and UC are currently software-centric solutions dependent on servers for call control and applications processing, so naturally XXXXX would think about offering a full hardware/software package based on virtually dedicated servers. XXXXX's UC offerings are becoming too-server intensive: virtually dedicated servers would eliminate a lot of server hardware and lower costs.

What is wrong with this notion is voice or more precisely IP Telephony and Unified Communications (ok - all things VoIP) has been widely accepted as a networked application running on low cost server platforms and as a bolt-on to the traditional PBX known as a hybrid system. For this discussion, I will stick to the low cost server platform. This server platform is the same platform which can support E-Mail system such Lotus from IBM, or Microsoft Exchange. It can support database systems such as Oracle, mySQL, or Microsoft SQL. It can support operating systems such as various Linux incarnations, various Windows incarnations, various proprietary UNIX incarnations and other OS of your choosing. These can be managed by a wide range of management platforms from main stream vendors. It is a generic general purpose platform for the most part with minor variation from vendor to vendor which amounts to technical hair splitting. What is variable here are the hardware capabilities. Like your own PC, you can buy better more capable systems – more expensive systems which do more things faster and better with greater redundancy. Dedicated non-mainstream servers are quite rare and quite expensive. They are built in relatively low volume and very special purposed. They do not use commonly used components as you find in other dedicated, high volume, commodity type devices such as video game consoles or DVRs like a TiVo, which are sold at a loss because the manufacturer can sell subscriptions or games and still make a good profit.

But I digress - One analogy I like to use is the Typewriter. It was replaced by the IBM Displaywriter. It was a dedicated computer. This expensive device became obsolete when word processing software simply became another inexpensive application which could run on the personal computer. IP Telephony and the applications which make up Unified Communications are just like this. They are just applications which can exist within networked computing infrastructure. The storage and computing power is distributed and what is important is capability of the environment and the supportability of the environment can be centrally managed – or not.

The Professional Reference

I was once given some free advice by a very smart man when asking him for a professional reference. This advice became a staple in my own toolkit because it seemed so obvious, yet it was necessary to be offered. Based on my own anecdotal non-scientific study of one, evidence has demonstrated beyond doubt that many people seem unaware of how best to ask for a reference or how awkward this can be.

So here it comes!

It is always a good idea to contact the person you asking this of and let them know that they may be getting a call. If they agree to provide the reference, give this person their talking points. You really do not want your reference talking off the cuff when being asked about your strengths and weaknesses. It seems like common sense, yet it is uncommon.

You need your reference to be clear and concise. Your reference needs to know the basics:

1) What job are you going for?
2) What projects or work are likely to be emphasised?
3) Is there likely to be emphasis on being team oriented or are you expected to be a self starter?
4) Are you looking to lead a team or remain a individual contributor as I knew you?
5) Are any particular technology, expertise, or soft skills likely to be asked about?
6) Why did you leave my team?

There are no secrets, just clear communication. It is your obligation to help the person you asking for help. No one likes to be surprised or be Johnny-on-the-spot. Pretty simple?

Faith in Ourselves and Trust in Science Part II

As a follow up to my last post, perhaps the Universe does not care about anyone because it can not and just maybe more faith needs to be placed into ourselves. Consider in the blink of the eye of humanity's existence, how many societies have risen and fallen - along with their deities. We have been walking around for more than 6000 years, or so some would like to believe. Consider today's breakdown of beliefs by percentages. If you think about it at all, it really does not add up. But what seems odd, if Genesis is correct, if we just consider our own solar system, why did it take so much longer for the rest of the planets to form than the Earth considering the Earth is small rocky planet? Now consider our solar system is just one of billions. Now consider our galaxy is just one of billions. Is this intelligent design ramp-up time to get it basics understood for Earth, but everything else was done with incredible haste? Why are we just now beginning to understand the basic mechanics of how things work?

Was it not the late and our most enlightened Pope John Paul II, who offered that life should not be limited to this planet alone? That is pretty tough stuff coming from the same outfit that just recently apologized for Galileo's poor taste in inventing the telescope and writing about the sun being the center of our solar system.

If we stick to the surface of the Earth - and if things were designed intelligently, why would they need to adapt? Why did the designer screw the poor Emperor Penguins in Antarctica? Heck, how did they get there anyway? Were they being punished? Why not come down and say oops? "Messed up there - should have made those eggs better insulated". Our brains tend to look at snapshots and we try to make sense of what we can observe.

When we discover things that support scientific theory and begin to understand how things actually work, this not a bad thing. I believe it somewhat unhealthy to cling to ideology that was hip when the old testament was written, by men. At least it is a logically inconsistent attitude. Meaning, if you cling to one set of beliefs as true, why not take all beliefs contained inside this collection? Why not slavery? Why not how how women are treated? What about polygamy? What about food preparation? We edit for convenience and political expedience. Sometimes people lose sight that the value, if there is any, is one of metaphor. This stuff may belong in the Philosophy classroom, but never in the Science classroom. Humans can evolve, not just through biological means but through Evolutionary Psychology. We can regress too, but it is our choice and our fault if we do.

The Conspiring Universe

The experiences we gather throughout life by definition are unique. This notion applies to both work and life experiences. At times the Universe can seem indifferent when we need a little help, seem to favor us when when things go well, and sometimes she can seem to conspire against us and appear outright cruel when she is at her worst. She can shake your core beliefs and take a perspective which you would take as a certainty and turn it on its head with a flash, casting doubt on all that you knew as fact. But - the Universe simply is. Many of us realize this, but still personify and personalize our relationship to the world and Universe anyway. Why?

Our opinions and life views are shaped by what we experience, who and what we are exposed, and how we respond to these situations. These opinions are formed, and reinforced over time by these unique personal experiences. No one can take this away and no one can substitute their own experiences for other's. The best we can do is enjoy shared experiences and try to understand, but even this is limited. We may be exposed to the same situation, but will respond differently as we have interpret that situation based on our own filtering and coping mechanisms. We as human beings tend to stay within our own comfort zones of what is familiar and reinforce what is expected. We will see world as expect to see it. But sometimes, the Universe has a surprise for us and it is not pleasant when she decides to shake it up a bit. Often this prospect is even more bothersome if the membrane between relative success and failure seems to place us a precipice and leaves us disappointed, distraught. But it need not be all gloom as Jim Morrison said in Roadhouse Blues, Well, I got up this morning a got myself a beer. The future's uncertain and the end is always near. Let it roll, baby roll.

Message? Sometimes you need to have that Martini, realize there is going to be issues, and move forward. Although, I would probably wait until after lunch for that Martini. The future is never certain, except there will be one.

E-Mail Etiquette

I have been using E-Mail in one form or another since the mid 1980s. Yet today, I find it kind of funny that people still are struggling with how to use E-Mail. Indeed, we have seen many warnings in the news media about those who would do our economy harm by way of cyber-crime. You may have received many E-Mails - which end up clogging the Internet - promising riches through Nigerians and Taiwanese lawyers, government ministers, or long lost family members. These people just need someone of good moral fiber to help them, which could be you. These people do mean harm. Quite frankly, if you fall for the scam you believe you are getting something for nothing. I have to wonder – do enough people fall for this for these people to keep trying?

Yet, who is actually clogging my E-Mail box? Typically it is a friend or family member who has recently discovered the personal computer, the Internet and E-Mail. Not everyone wants to be warned that Bill Gates is going to pay me for sending E-Mail as a test. Nor do I really need to be falsely warned that the U.S. Postal Service is going to start charging me a fee "per E-Mail message." Considering the US Government invented the Internet, I find that one particularly amusing. Does anyone really believe that they must forward on this or any other E-Mail to keep the "chain" intact – or risk bad luck? Seems like the bad luck arrived when I received the message! But what bothers me the most, unlike operating a vehicle which requires the driver to know and abide by the rules of the road, the novice computer user does not seem to care about E-Mail etiquette.

For example, such a user has no idea about the BCC: line. They have no concern about factual correctness – they will send the message just in case! They will send spam usually of two forms.

1) Most of the message is nothing but the address list of the sender. You must scroll through the entire message to actually get any idea of the message what sender intended. Sometimes, this original message may actually be an attachment of an attachment.

2) The message is a bogus warning. It is flat out incorrect. No fact checking was done. No sources cited. It’s like having the no say whether or not I take delivery of the National Enquirer or Fox News.

This type behavior represents a greater threat to E-Mail integrity, time management, and space in your inbox. Luckily, there are resources such as Snopes that easily allow you to de-confuse your friend and point them in the right direction, gently. But, do you try? This can create anxiety. Do you let them go on believing? Do you engage in gentle stewardship of the person to become better a netizen? You can ignore the problem and hope it goes away. However, I suggest you reply to gently to correct information and how to send email to many people using BCC: feature as well as exercise a healthy dose of scrutiny before simply forwarding anything on as "factual" by doing a little research yourself.

Why? Noise. With so much unnecessary or junk E-Mail messages, I start to disregard all their E-Mail messages. When and should they send something I need to know about, I would never know.

Texas BoE Vote Update- Or Hijackers of the GoP Update

Apparently Dallas, Texas - what one would expect to be the den of the conservative block of Texas - is not so narrow minded after all. Consider the Board of Education vote according to the Dallas Morning News: All three Dallas-area board members – Republicans Geraldine Miller of Dallas and Pat Hardy of Weatherford, and Democrat Mavis Knight of Dallas – opposed the rule that would allow the curriculum a creationism foothold by purporting flaws in evolutionary theory. They cited the recommendations of a science review committee of teachers and academics, who contended that talking about "weaknesses" would undermine the proper teaching of Charles Darwin’s theory of how humans evolved from lower life forms. On the other hand, the central area (Lampasas to Ft Worth area) Texas Board of Education members and The Woodlands (Houston) area, which one would naturally expect to be more, let us say enlightened, seemed to have difficulty distinguishing fact from fantasy. It highly probably these people do not have a grasp of the issues. Perhaps they lack even a basic high school level education level biology accreditation, nor could give you a definition of simple terms like theory, hypothesis, observation, validation, corroboration, geology, or evidence. At least for now – enough outraged people called and said enough is enough. The vote was narrow.

The final vote is in MARCH!!! SO DO NOT GIVE UP!

Do we need to reinforce that our expectation for all subjects be relevant?

1) Math? We teach math? Not 2+2=5? What if there is a miracle? You aint got no time machine to prove otherwise? Maybe 6000 years ago when the Earth was made, the 2+2 did make 5?
2) English? What if my bible says I decide I do not prononce nor spel the sam az yu.
3) Home Schoolin? My youngins got their learnins from their bible. It all good and they aint need no social skills as they get thit from church. I dont want them confused with devil words and trickery.
4) Chemistry? Why not Alchemy? Lead into Gold? It is great in a recession!
5) All theories are incomplete!!! Therefore, all are worthless! Therefore, no Gravity!
6) What is the point of having a standard, a discipline, if it actually means - nothing? It is no longer a science at that point. It is would be like confusing Astrology with Astronomy. Which probably is actually a tad confusing to certain BoE seat warmers!

Maybe we need a new board? At least, we need to thank the ones in Dallas who cared enough to consider the definition of 'science'! For the others? Consider there are places in the world where your 'ah' perspective would be 'tolerated'. Of course, you will be living in the 5th century - but that is what you are after - right? Just do not make me do it. If you want that for your children, send them such a place and pay for it yourself. Let them reap the consequences of non reality.

Stem Cell Trial

The tides seem to be turning on the position on stem cell research of the former Bush administration. This is good news for the world, good news for the USA, but bad news for fear mongers and those, if born at another time, would not support the use of antibiotics, believe in germ theory, reject the idea of a flat earth, understand the stuff of air, and would cling to the notion that the sun moves across the surface of the Earth. Yes – it’s true – the FDA under a new administration and bright light, which seems progressive, moving forward - has approved a clinical trial in humans, in the USA. True - it is a little late and we are playing catch up. The critics will say this will create a market for embryos. The critics will say this will destroy life. Well, the critics are arguing from a point of ignorance. I do not mean ignorance as being stupid; I mean not being informed of facts. The critic would be satisfied with flushing a perfectly good embryo down the drain which was not used for in vitro fertilization. A left over if you will. The critic considers this more ethical. Come to think of it, should we add in vitro fertilization to the taboo list of the fear monger?

The Theory of Stupid

From a comment in the Dallas Morning News.

FadingLullaby: It is called the Theory of Evolution for a reason (It is not proven nor could it ever really be proven unless someone happens to be millions of years old). If we are going to explain to students one theory should we not explain all major theories and then let the students decide for themselves? Darwinism is just as much a religion as Creationism is. Neither can be proven, both have flaws, and both are theories.

This person votes. This person drives.

Scary.

Taxes and Those Who Evade Them

There has been much talk lately about tax cuts. Who deserves a cut? Who does not? Those who pay taxes? Those who do not? Is there such a thing? Critics argue back and forth who is deserving of such so-called tax cuts, tax rebates, or economic stimulus packages. But who are these critics anyway? It occurs to me while driving the children to their public school down a public highway, past a certain section, there are always orange cones set up and the or local police department is directing traffic into a local private Christian school from the center turn lane. I find this somewhat ironic if not irritating. I know that on Saturdays and Sundays, off duty officers can volunteer and most churches will reimburse for fuel and general wear on the vehicles. But these are not off duty officers and vehicles are tied up. This is a daily ritual and this tax exempt organization does not have to employ private personnel nor purchase a traffic signal. As I continue to drive to the public school, I think about the property tax bill due this month, the sales tax rate which always seems to be going up, the monthly HOA dues to pay for our community, the bonds for our public schools and roads, and the federal income tax time coming up.

I kiss the kids goodbye as I drop them off at the local 'robin hood' Texas public school. I take a sip of my coffee and begin my commute to work to help subsidize efforts to replace science in the classroom with a perversion of the Flintstones well knowing that at this exact same time, this type of 'tax dollars at work' event is happening on another stretch of highway only a few miles away. I take another sip and speed up a little.

Peanut Butter Contamination or Genesis Secret or Occam's Razor?

With all the concern about contaminated peanut butter, maybe life is indeed springing from sealed containers after all? No? Ok, It's time to return to Peanut Butter man. But really, I think this a little funny, yet a little scary at the same time. I guess Dr. Missler has not heard of very ancient concept known as Panspermia. A concept where life did not necessarily originate here on Earth. It suggests it was deposited via a rocky asteroid or an icy comet. We know microbes are hardy little beasts and can quite well survive within rocks. What if such a rock were to fall to a barren young Earth? We do know comets have visited us already. Why should the material of life be unique to this planet? Sometimes people look to magic when the simplest explanation is quite sufficient. But this model, does not fit his template for a perfect closed world view. His energy is magic. Enjoy the video. There are many variations. I have included the link to the 'fair and balanced version'. Dr. Missler presumes much, but his mistake is he presumes the Earth is a closed system, when the ancient Greeks did not even do this!

Life from Peanut Butter

Teach Them Science!

I just spoke with my Board of Education representative Gail Lowe and had to explain to her what a theory is. These people are responsible for the E in BoE in Texas. When we spoke and I expressed my opinion that I desired to keep science in the classroom, she took the approach that I am in the camp that evolution should be taught in schools.

Who made camps exactly? The Scopes Trials were quite a while ago. Inherit the Wind, was a great book and a decent movie. But that is history! Why are we re-visiting this topic today? I am not convinced the people responsible for the selection of our text books have an adequate understanding of the basic principal of science. Religion is not science. Considering, science requires a theory to be supported by evidence and this theory can be only be supported with evidence. This process is repeatable through experimentation by others, with supporting theories which do not stand by themselves. A theory is not monolithic entity. It is a framework, a continuum, and it is self correcting. Religion is faith. It is personal. One does not ask another person to validate another person’s faith. At least they should not. I had to make this point this point very clear.

Fact: There is not room for both in a science classroom. One is theory based. One is not. This is not opinion. You cannot test, measure, and replicate tests of others faith based observations.

Fact: Just because a given ‘theory’ is not ‘whole’ does not mean that the parts which are understood are in any way invalidated by the supportive arguments.

Fact: Science deals with what it can observe either directly or indirectly. No magical thinking is allowed.

I left the conversation with the idea that what we know today changes from what we will know tomorrow. We learn. We adapt. Science is humbling. I suggested if want to have religion in our schools, we should have religious electives. Dogma, on the other hand is stagnant. Did not we just get recently get around to apologizing to Galileo for his blasphemy about Jupiter? If you want to see how the GOP has been hijacked by the Christian right, visit the Discovery Institute. So much for limited government.

Yes – it has come to this. We are worse than Kansas, we are even worse than Louisiana. However, unlike these states, we set the example.

Visit the site: http://www.teachthemscience.org/

Mr. Obama have you Driven a Ford Lately?

So will President Obama have a variation on President Ford's line?

My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over

Methane on Mars?

This is cool, despite the cause. Depending on what you hear, where you hear it, it is either strong signal of life or just geothermic activities. However, here on this planet – it is almost always from life. But Mars is cold. Mars is different. Mars apparently has no recent volcanic venting, no recent lava flows. Yet there is evidence, observed of recent water venting in the few years from photos of the same spot in the side of crater, or so it seems. So something is warming the water. If it is water. See how this is confusing? Maybe that same process is also keeping something alive and burping up some methane? Then again, maybe that process is simply burping up methane. Let's not jump to optical conclusions?

There may be surprises waiting for us that are interesting, but not biological. The press headlines, well - they are just shameless.

Nano Nukes in Your Back Yard

Who has enough energy these days? How do we get more?

1) Do we build more carbon emitting power plants?
2) Do we tear up the land, build more windmills, and run more power lines that require super conducting, super expensive, and super maintenance?
3) Do we reconsider our nuclear option?
4) Do we pretend technologies will exist that are impossible like 'clean coal'?

Is it better to build nuclear power plants or continue with carbon based systems? I believe our immediate strategy should be nuclear. But just not any nuclear, not fusion as that red herring has been something promised for too long. Not traditional fission. Too dangerous. Besides, can it be regulated by our federal government when they have trouble keeping tomatoes, serrano peppers, and peanut butter safe? Looks like the Ronco – set it and forget it nuke is the best bet as it has the advantage of being safe from the those with the “best intentions” and being safe from those with the “worst intentions” alike.

I do not see why we would not pursue a distributed model these types of systems. It does cause people to think in the long term. Not political in terms of 2 years or 4 years. Maybe that is the kind of change we need. Just think - 30 years of energy for power. This simply puts us back to the Edison model of putting power generation next to those who consume energy. This notion was discarded because the method used then caused pollution and he favored DC voltage, Direct Current cannot travel long distances like our familiar Alternating Current. Not to mention, even clean sources, such as hydro-electric power required long distances to travel. Maybe T. Boone Pickens should support this idea instead of his wind mills? Of course, with this, we wouldn’t need to buy all that land and build all those power lines. Imminent domain and conflicts of interests. It’s all so confusing.

But, even this is preferred strip mining low level radioactive dirt, arsenic and burning it (known as lignite), coal, and any windmills that come to mind.

Solar? Great for the desert states – but what about dust storms? Plus – it just does not scale to produce a lot of power for lot of people.

The Ronco NanoNuke?

Kevin’s link is: http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/15865/?a=f.

Or read below!

----------------------------------------------

Small Nuclear Self-contained power plants could supply growing energy demand in poor countries.

By Kevin Bullis

Now more than ever, the world needs nuclear energy, says this year's Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Mohamed ElBaradei. In a talk at MIT last week he cited a new report from the International Energy Agency that said world energy demand will increase by 50 percent in the next 25 years. Meanwhile, carbon dioxide emissions, which are a leading cause of global warming, will increase by the same percentage. Nuclear power could provide a significant amount of that power, without producing the carbon dioxide, says ElBaradei. It's an argument that's attracting more and more proponents these days. But traditional nuclear power plants are very expensive to build, which can be a serious obstacle to their construction in poor countries. One solution being proposed, according to ElBaradei, is to build hundreds of small nuclear power plants, each designed to serve a single town. Such plants could be built for a fraction of the cost of the current large-scale regional ones. And they could be installed without the need to also build an extensive and expensive power grid. As a country's energy needs grow, more plants can be added to keep up. Such plants might also be a good solution for remote communities. A countryside dotted with hundreds of small reactors might seem like a safety and nuclear proliferation nightmare. But, according to ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, they can be built with safeguards against meltdowns and theft of materials by would-be terrorists. Researchers at Argonne National Laboratory in Argonne, IL, described a concept for such a small-scale reactor this summer. One of the safeguards is a passive cooling system, which continues to work even if power goes down. The reactors could also operate for 30 years without refueling, which would mean fewer deliveries that could be hijacked. And stealing the fuel while it was in the reactor would require bringing to the site extensive heavy equipment, which would be easily visible by satellite, according to David Wade, senior technical advisor at Argonne and one of the developers of the concept. "It's good to have a reactor that requires a minimum of maintenance and refueling" for remote locations in some situations, says Mujid Kazimi, a nuclear engineer at MIT. He says that similar small reactors are under development in Argentina and Brazil, and Toshiba has recently offered to build one for an Alaskan town. The Argonne concept uses a reactor cooled by liquid lead that allows for high operating temperatures and efficient use of the fuel, which is programmed to produce energy slowly over the 30-year cycle. The lead coolant also circulates without the need for the expensive back-up diesel generators required by today's plants. "If it is built correctly, it will be able to be cooled by natural convection alone," says Kazimi, who was not part of the concept development team. The power plant would be mostly buried underground for protection, and surrounded by a back-up passive air cooling system -- hot air rises out of the exhaust stack and cool air is pulled in through low vents. This system would run continuously, essentially wasting about one percent of the heat generated, yet ensuring that the reactor would cool off in the case of a problem. The reactor is partially self-regulating. If the temperature rises, the structures containing the fuel expand, causing the fuel to spread out, and slowing down the frequency of the neutron collisions that create the nuclear reaction. This, in turn, causes the temperature to fall. These features, says Wade, should simplify the control of the plant and prevent meltdowns. The lead will also serve as a safety measure. The fuel will be delivered inside the lead in a solid form, to be melted on site. When this module is removed and replaced after thirty years, the lead will cool off -- now encasing the used fuel. This can be returned to a central facility for reprocessing, after which almost all of the spent fuel can be reused, says Wade. On the downside, building small reactors means losing out on the economy of scale that has driven a trend toward bigger and bigger reactors, says Wade. He hopes to make up for this by creating ways to mass-produce the reactors in modules that can be quickly assembled on site. For Wade, small reactors are part of a vision for large-scale changes. "What we're trying to do is not only change the technology, but also exploit it, by changing the infrastructures. You can ship thirty years of energy with a single core loading, to provide energy security for a country without the need to install the infrastructure [for processing the fuel] right on its own territory." ElBaradei says designs such as the one developed at Argonne could actually "reduce access to sensitive nuclear material" if countries agreed to share fuel facilities. "We cannot afford to have every country sitting on an enrichment factory or reprocessing facility," he says. If a country with such a facility begins to feel threatened, it "would be able to develop nuclear weapons within a matter of months." "We who live in the nuclear age are approaching a crossroads, a moment of truth," ElBaradei told the audience at MIT. "Will this technology continue to be harnessed as a servant of development? Or will we become the victim of its destructive power?" For now, he says, "the benefits of nuclear energy are needed more than ever."

Obama’s going to unleash Stem Cell Research?

A friend of mine was concerned that soon to be President Obama was going to undo stem cell research and this would lead to cloning. Cows, Sheep, and then human cloning as he put it. As a Fox news viewer, this was all very scary to him. Plus he said, "Did you not see "The Clone Wars"? He went on - "How would feel if all these identical copies of you are walking around?" “Would you not feel weird knowing that was ‘you’ everywhere”? I found this quite puzzling and replied “They would not actually be me”. Stating that once the egg gets fertilized and moves on to become an embryo - that is when the changes to the cells or mutations start happening and they are no longer identical, and so on. I started to lose him and did not convince him. He started 'I disagree' they are you. He said was concerned that Mr. Obama was going to undo all that Mr. Bush had stifled stem cell because this type of research is playing ‘God’. I could only respond with, “The exact same thing was said about heart transplants and I think it would far better to grow a heart rather than to wait for a heart to be harvested”.

He has identical twins. They are not identical anymore. Things such as cosmic rays, or background radiation, or UV rays, plus all that complex cell division; I had to laugh to myself. An understanding of policy of science built but on religion and fiction?

This Blog

I decided to start a blog. I do often visit many blogs and often comment. However, but it occured to me why not start writing down what occurs to me and see where it leads?