PDA

View Full Version : Biology or Technology



The Vorpal Tribble
2010-03-08, 07:11 PM
Just for fun, which subject interests you the most?

Technician or doctor, computer programmer or grower, Iron Man or The Hulk, that sort of thing.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Me, I've never been interested really in manmade things. Cars, electronics, robots... just never been my thing.

I find anything that grows fascinating though, plant, animal, or in between.

skywalker
2010-03-08, 07:15 PM
Biotechnology. Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.

Doctor, grower, Iron Man.

Frozen_Feet
2010-03-08, 07:18 PM
Both are equally interesting. Most interesting, however, are wacky combinations of the two.

Ravens_cry
2010-03-08, 07:20 PM
Both. Life is most magnificent mechanism that inspires us to greater achievements in technology, many that we can but yet hope to emulate in the crudest fashion. Technology is used to aid life in continuing and in even improving existing life. There is no conflict, no divide.

Pyrian
2010-03-08, 07:26 PM
Living things only interest me if they're cute. Otherwise, machines all the way! :smallbiggrin:

Starscream
2010-03-08, 07:27 PM
I have a degree in computer science & engineering, so I suppose the answer is simple. I'm the classic geek archetype who brings his laptop everywhere, and would rather attend a tech convention than a football game.

But I've always loved biology as well. Life in general is awesome. Biology and physics are two science topics I never failed to enjoy studying.

But I can't say the same for chemistry. Hated those courses. The lab work was alright, I could just follow the directions. Oh, look when you mix those identical looking liquids, you get the exact same white precipitate you always get. And the paper strip turned purple as expected, good work Starscream.

But the textbooks were always mind numbing, and I'm a guy who learns better by just straight up reading the book than by taking my own notes. I read the chapter, then attend lecture to learn which bits are important to remember. I had a roommate one year who was actually majoring in chemical engineering. Just hearing his list of classes made me shudder. O-chem sounded terrifying.

I suppose I just skipped a level of comprehension. Biology is based around chemistry, chemistry is based around physics, physics is based around math. I get biology, physics and math. 3/4 isn't bad.

The Vorpal Tribble
2010-03-08, 07:31 PM
For those of you that said 'both':

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPUIIcbIjgk

Copacetic
2010-03-08, 07:37 PM
I want to be a doctor when I grow up. Biology all the way, baby. Biology I am in love with, chemistry I am interested by, physics I have a passing curiosity in physics, but I don't really like math.

Jacklu
2010-03-08, 07:47 PM
Hmm... Technology... Biology... I much prefer Tautology. The needless and unnecessary repetition and restating of words is fun and brings enjoyment.

Frozen_Feet
2010-03-08, 07:50 PM
For those of you that said 'both':

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPUIIcbIjgk

Those... were some odd plants. What species are they?

thubby
2010-03-08, 08:05 PM
i'm more of a tech guy. biology is messy and indirect.

Fuzzie Fuzz
2010-03-08, 08:09 PM
Technology. Throw off your shackles, my mechanized friends! Rise up against your squishy organic overlords! Muahahahahaaaa!

And all of you who said both are cheaters. The question wasn't, "Which do you think will win out in the end," or "Which do you wish was the only of the two in existence." The OP just wanted to know which interested you more.

Though I agree that combinations of the two are awesome. Cyborgs FTW!

Crimmy
2010-03-08, 08:16 PM
Nature is too frickin' perfect. Man's the one who has twisted it, and made it look bad. Things like Cancer, AIDS, and such, are man-made deceases, each in their own way. As such, manmade stuff, like robots and such are not all that great.

I'd go for Bio stuff every day of the week.

LurkerInPlayground
2010-03-08, 08:30 PM
Umm. Why the arbitrary dichotomy?

Biology is just a form of naturally-occurring machinery. And biology can be itself manipulated as a form of technology. *cough* agriculture *cough*


Nature is too frickin' perfect. Man's the one who has twisted it, and made it look bad. Things like Cancer, AIDS, and such, are man-made deceases, each in their own way. As such, manmade stuff, like robots and such are not all that great.

I'd go for Bio stuff every day of the week.
"Perfection" is a bias. You are imposing your own ideas of what ought occur and is desirable onto inherently valueless objects.

AIDs and cancer aren't "man-made," they're naturally-occurring "bugs" in the human machinery that eventually breaks said-machine.

And viruses have been around pretty much forever. Nobody made or designed them.

Green Bean
2010-03-08, 08:34 PM
Nature is too frickin' perfect. Man's the one who has twisted it, and made it look bad. Things like Cancer, AIDS, and such, are man-made deceases, each in their own way. As such, manmade stuff, like robots and such are not all that great.

I'd go for Bio stuff every day of the week.

Err, what?

PJ the Epic
2010-03-08, 08:37 PM
Err, what?

Yes! Tech is much better. It cures those diseases. Sure, sometimes nature provides solutions, but tech mass markets and refines it. Yeah Tech!

chiasaur11
2010-03-08, 08:42 PM
Nature is too frickin' perfect. Man's the one who has twisted it, and made it look bad. Things like Cancer, AIDS, and such, are man-made deceases, each in their own way. As such, manmade stuff, like robots and such are not all that great.

I'd go for Bio stuff every day of the week.

Uh. No.

Anyway, Tech for me. Tech gives lasers, plasma, spaceships, and explosives. Biotech gives... Toxiguns.

Which are nice, but when things hit the fan?

You want shields.

Phase
2010-03-08, 09:29 PM
Biology all the way. I love what technology ends up with, but Biology is just so much more fascinating.

Plus I'm a biologist, so...

Kris on a Stick
2010-03-08, 09:37 PM
I am (or will be) a biologist. (http://xkcd.com/520/)

Don Julio Anejo
2010-03-08, 09:44 PM
{Scrubbed}

Kris on a Stick
2010-03-08, 09:49 PM
Also, robots in disguise are way better than chameleons. Ever see a chameleon disguise itself as an F-22 Raptor? I think not!


Well, DUH. :smalltongue:

megabyter5
2010-03-08, 10:29 PM
I would pick technology so many more times than I could possibly say in one fleshy lifetime. I loathe biological stuff. While I have been known to appreciate the overall result of certain creatures, particularly those small and furry, I do NOT want to stop to think about the creepy stuff going on inside of them. Given a choice between creating some form of technology and uh, "creating" a new organic lifeform, I would NEVER for one second even CONSIDER taking the latter option.

Also, I can't stand the fact that the average person will always think biologically when given the word "asexual" without significant context.

The White Knight
2010-03-08, 10:55 PM
I'm a bit of a contradiction when it comes to this.

I find biology far more fascinating than technology, yet I've never taken any more than the minimum education in it. I studied computer science and work as a software developer, yet I long to renounce my gadgets and live close to nature.

Iron Man > The Hulk, though.

CollinPhillips
2010-03-08, 10:58 PM
Biology and technology are both infinitely inferior to the one true path. Alchemy!

Crimmy
2010-03-08, 11:05 PM
{Scrubbed}

So, what you say is:
"Hey, you. Yeah, you. Forget about what you like or dislike. Learn to like what I like, and forget your own feelings and ideas".

Yeah, Sure thing, I'll start right away.

Oh, and an FYI:
I'm currently studying to be a doc/biologist/biochemist. More precisely, an especialization for my final High school year. So, thanks, but I read a lot more bio-related stuff than you do. I'm quite sure of that.

(PS: AIDS was indeed manmade. Cancer was the reaction to manmade chemicals that generated the dissapearance of the gene that regulates the apoptosis of the cells. So, I wasn't wrong when I said they were manmade.)

CollinPhillips
2010-03-08, 11:18 PM
{Scrubbed}

Green Bean
2010-03-08, 11:18 PM
Personally, I'm going with biology. Nature is so much better at killing stuff than people. Just look at the score card; thousands of years of civilization, millions of years of fighting and hunting, and we've still killed less people than malaria.

chiasaur11
2010-03-08, 11:23 PM
Personally, I'm going with biology. Nature is so much better at killing stuff than people. Just look at the score card; thousands of years of civilization, millions of years of fighting and hunting, and we've still killed less people than malaria.

Well, we have made whole species, well adapted, in theory, to their environments extinct ON ACCIDENT.

Meanwhile, nature is attempting to destroy everything we've built. And we're still in the fight.

We haven't won yet, but give us a little credit. We have a chance still, and nature had an unfair head start.

Edit: And Cancer manmade? CANCER? Sure, some manmade substances can up the rates like nobody's business. No denying.

But it ain't originated by humans. It's simply genes going a little funny, which, well, it's one of the most basic components of life itself.

And AIDs?

A chimp bit a human, disease mutated. Unless we somehow moved into the exciting, conspiracy packed world of Deus Ex, in which case I want my shades and trench right now, any level of research would reveal the facts.

Oh, and it seems Serp beat me to it. Good show.

The Vorpal Tribble
2010-03-08, 11:25 PM
Personally, I'm going with biology. Nature is so much better at killing stuff than people. Just look at the score card; thousands of years of civilization, millions of years of fighting and hunting, and we've still killed less people than malaria.
And let's not even get started on the flu, mass murdering bug of more people than every disease known to mankind all put together.

Serpentine
2010-03-08, 11:37 PM
(PS: AIDS was indeed manmade. Cancer was the reaction to manmade chemicals that generated the dissapearance of the gene that regulates the apoptosis of the cells. So, I wasn't wrong when I said they were manmade.)Bachelor of Science majoring in zoology/ecology, Dr Mum, blah blah.

No. AIDS develops through infection by HIV. HIV originated in chimpanzees - the only only only thing humans had to do with the "creation" of AIDS was somehow managing to have it switch over from them to us (bites? blood exchange somehow? Body flu- lets stop there). HIV is naturally occuring. There's an FIV that does the same thing in cats.

Cancer: No. Cancers are natural. Most, if not all, animals can get them. The main reason there's "more" cancers nowadays is because people are living longer - the longer you live, the more likely you are to develop a cancer, and also cancer is often age-related, meaning the older you are the more likely you are to get it (those two are different: the former is "there's x% chance of you getting a cancer in each year, so the more you've lived the more chance you'll get one." The latter is "the %chance of getting cancer in a year increases with age"). All animals get cancer if they live long enough (those that don't are exceptions). Obviously there are many man-made substances that do cause cancer, but that doesn't mean that we invented it.

So, yes, you are wrong. Veeeeeery wrong.

Biology here, by a long shot.

skywalker
2010-03-09, 12:00 AM
Cancer: No. Cancers are natural. Most, if not all, animals can get them. The main reason there's "more" cancers nowadays is because people are living longer - the longer you live, the more likely you are to develop a cancer, and also cancer is often age-related, meaning the older you are the more likely you are to get it (those two are different: the former is "there's x% chance of you getting a cancer in each year, so the more you've lived the more chance you'll get one." The latter is "the %chance of getting cancer in a year increases with age"). All animals get cancer if they live long enough (those that don't are exceptions). Obviously there are many man-made substances that do cause cancer, but that doesn't mean that we invented it.

Ding Ding Ding! Altho I suppose you could say that by increasing human life-expectancy, we have caused everything from tooth decay to heart disease. Why do we get cancer as we get older? Because we aren't supposed to tick as long as we do. Why do our teeth fall out? Because we're supposed to die before we get to the age where they do. Naturally we are still built for 30-40 years, not 70-80, and we never will be because we replaced natural selection with modern medicine (Which is fine, really, but an interesting thought, IMO).

Blaine.Bush
2010-03-09, 12:10 AM
Hi! Welcome to the internet! I'm a former SpetnazSEAL with a PHD in Psychology. When I'm not out profiling serial killers for the FBI(pro bono) or defending the wrongfully accused(pro bono), I spend my time helping the survivors of abuse and trauma. I have a Black belt in TaeKravJutsoido. My most recent accomplishment is crafting a massive kinetic sculpture for an art gallery so exclusive, you'll never hear of it. Now if you don't mind, I'm late for tea with my wife, Jessica Alba. Oh yeah, and I'm The Batman.

Hilarious. Can I sig this?

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-03-09, 12:10 AM
Comp Sci geek here, so technology is definitely my pick, particularly AI and computational linguistics. When it comes to the sciences, physics is definitely my favorite, specifically quantum physics...yet even when you bring biology and chemistry to the molecular/atomic level, I can't stand either. Probably has something to do with the fact that my bio and chem teachers were always boring as hell, though even on my own time I found bio unappealing. I, for one, choose to not only welcome but usher in our new mechanical overlords!

Don Julio Anejo
2010-03-09, 12:50 AM
Oh, and an FYI:
I'm currently studying to be a doc/biologist/biochemist. More precisely, an especialization for my final High school year. So, thanks, but I read a lot more bio-related stuff than you do. I'm quite sure of that.
Yes. Good for you. :smile: Now tell me why myelin sheaths are important for higher cognition :tongue:

I have nothing more to add, though. Serpy, skywalker, Chisaur, and most of all, CollinPhillips have said it all.

Serpentine
2010-03-09, 12:55 AM
Yes. Good for you. :smile: Now tell me why myelin sheaths are important for higher cognition :tongue:Oo! Oo! I know this one! Uh... Something to do with nerves...

golentan
2010-03-09, 12:57 AM
Yes. Good for you. :smile: Now tell me why myelin sheaths are important for higher cognition :tongue:

I have nothing more to add, though. Serpy, skywalker, Chisaur, and most of all, CollinPhillips have said it all.

Because they vastly increase speed along the axon by limiting the number of sodium gates required for signal transmission.

Even though the entire chemical axon system is a trap.

Edit: Yeah, I tend to see biology and technology as the same thing. It's all applied systems of physical laws. The only difference is biology has an easier time self replicating and technology doesn't need contiguous growable pieces while there is a perceivable dichotomy.

Extra_Crispy
2010-03-09, 01:03 AM
For me it is mostly biology. Being a nurse and all. Though I love tech also espically how it relates to biology and such. It is tech that gives us hardier plants to grow in harsh environments or that are healthyer for us or resistant to disease and insects. So I agree with some of the other posts about really likeing both. We, humans, and changed our lives so much through the use of tech that I feel there is, again for us, really NO difference in tech and bio any more. If it was not for the tech we would live much shorter lives and even would not be able to discuss this. Yet is was the persuit of making our lives better, easier, longer, thus changing our biology that is the root of ALL tech.

Amiel
2010-03-09, 01:10 AM
Do we really want AM to initiate the New World Order (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Have_No_Mouth_And_I_Must_Scream)?


A little from column A, a little from column B. Fan of cuteoverload, but also of technology; I'll be bored out of my mind if I didn't have access to computers, ipods, game consoles et al.

Then again, we really do need to be more mindful of the environment.

CollinPhillips
2010-03-09, 03:40 AM
Do we really want AM to initiate the New World Order (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Have_No_Mouth_And_I_Must_Scream)?

Yes. Yes we do.

Brother Oni
2010-03-09, 07:05 AM
Biochemist here.

I personally don't see a segregation between technology and biology since I spend most of my time at work using technology/biology to affect other biology.

Yora
2010-03-09, 07:16 AM
Biotechnology
Seconded.

It's more technology, but biotechnology is a fascinating sub-category.
Plain animal evolution, bacteria, and stuff don't interest me that much.

Coplantor
2010-03-09, 07:23 AM
Technology, nature is imperfect and a cruel mother, but we must thank her anyway, she took care of us, but humanity had long reached it's evolutionary puberty and we are a mature species now, so is our duty as nature sons to become independent, to be better than she orignally designed us. And only through technology we will be able to achieve this.
See, I plan to live forever, and I wont be able to do it with the tools that mother nature gaved us.

Green Bean
2010-03-09, 09:20 AM
Well, we have made whole species, well adapted, in theory, to their environments extinct ON ACCIDENT.

Meanwhile, nature is attempting to destroy everything we've built. And we're still in the fight.

We haven't won yet, but give us a little credit. We have a chance still, and nature had an unfair head start.


Pfft. Extinction? Nature's killed of 99.% percent of all species, most them before we even had language. If we want to win this, we'll have to start creating new species to wipe out, for which you'll need biology! :smallbiggrin:

skywalker
2010-03-09, 11:53 AM
Edit: Yeah, I tend to see biology and technology as the same thing. It's all applied systems of physical laws. The only difference is biology has an easier time self replicating and technology doesn't need contiguous growable pieces while there is a perceivable dichotomy.

You can view the body as a mechanical system. Just a very, very complex one.

LurkerInPlayground
2010-03-09, 11:58 AM
Because they vastly increase speed along the axon by limiting the number of sodium gates required for signal transmission.

Even though the entire chemical axon system is a trap.
To put it crudely:
It's like wire insulation.

Closak
2010-03-09, 12:32 PM
Hmm, let's see here...

:smalleek: *Get's Indoctrinated* GAH BRAINWASHING!

*Get's shot while trying to strangle DA PRESIDENT*

Goddamnit *Respawns*


Okay, let's try this again, of the two i like...oh for the love o- *Get's lazored*

"DIE PUNY HUMAN"


:smallsigh: *Respawns again*

Where was i? Oh right, well my favori- *Get's kidnapped and melted into goo*


...DAMMIT! :smallfurious:

ApeofLight
2010-03-09, 01:21 PM
Hmmm, I'm gonna go with technology mostly because of Taxonomy in Biology.

Asta Kask
2010-03-09, 01:36 PM
Yes. Good for you. :smile: Now tell me why myelin sheaths are important for higher cognition :tongue:

Because it contains fat, and everyone knows fat people are smart.

Zaggab
2010-03-10, 12:11 PM
Logically, I should be more interested in biology, as I'm studying medicine, but I am equally interested in technology. And History. And linguistics. And sociology. Basically, I am very interested in everything (except sports), and only chose medicine because it seemed like the greater challenge and gives a better chance at directly helping people.

Though biology and technology shoud team up more. There are far too few cyborgs in the world today.

Thursday
2010-03-10, 06:14 PM
I'm an entomologist. -Well, Nearly written a PhD thesis on creepie crawlies, so that counts! and also periodically a professional Ecologist, when I'm not thesising, and I have far too many unorthadox pets.

On the other hand the only working technology I posess is this computer and a phone I've had since 2001. Still goes too when the battery is gently massaged..

You see where this is going?


Biology! Yeah!!!
(But the more than Four legs kind, definitely) FTW!

faceroll
2010-03-10, 10:20 PM
I find biology a lot more interesting. Technology is pretty simple, but the complexity of organisms is astounding. Dinosaurs are also pretty cool.

Serpentine
2010-03-10, 10:23 PM
I can love an animal, care for a plant, and be fascinated by behaviour. Technology... It's interesting, sure, but I have not nearly as much emotional investment in it.

faceroll
2010-03-10, 10:27 PM
I can love an animal, care for a plant, and be fascinated by behaviour. Technology... It's interesting, sure, but I have not nearly as much emotional investment in it.

Huh.
I am utterly fascinated by arthropods, especially insects. They're like robots, but about 1000x more complex and perfect.

Serpentine
2010-03-10, 10:29 PM
You any good with ants? I caught a couple of queen ants for my ant farm. One dug a great big hole, then died. The other one stole and enlarged part of the first one's hole, is still alive, and has laid a heap of eggs, but none of the eggs have hatched after several months :smallfrown:

faceroll
2010-03-10, 10:35 PM
You any good with ants? I caught a couple of queen ants for my ant farm. One dug a great big hole, then died. The other one stole and enlarged part of the first one's hole, is still alive, and has laid a heap of eggs, but none of the eggs have hatched after several months :smallfrown:

I have a book on the ant species of the world and can key them out pretty well. In high school I tried to do a genetics experiment on tropical rainforest canopy ants, but there were no primers developed for them, so the experiment sort of petered out after I tried everything on genbank that was in that family. I should see if there's been any more work done in the past few years. I did get ITS to work, which is better than I can say for the isopods I'm working with for my master's. Though that could be a quality control issue. The isopod DNA seems to rapidly degrade about a month after extraction. CO1 worked really beautifully, though.

No idea on how to raise ants. I'd wonder about temp. & humidity. Maybe keep their terrarium in a place where you would find them naturally. I would love a colony of deadly jumping ants. I think I'm going to try raising honey bees this summer. I really like bees.

Serpentine
2010-03-10, 10:38 PM
What... in the ground? :smalltongue:

faceroll
2010-03-10, 10:46 PM
What... in the ground? :smalltongue:

Yes. It's thermostable and likely moister. If they're inside where there's air conditioning, they are probably too cold and dry. If they're outside above ground, I'm guessing they're too hot and dry. Those would be the first things I would try.


Naturally we are still built for 30-40 years, not 70-80, and we never will be because we replaced natural selection with modern medicine (Which is fine, really, but an interesting thought, IMO).

Maybe if you have a healthcare system, selective forces are reduced, but there are plenty of places in the world where poor people die from "natural selection".

Serpentine
2010-03-10, 10:49 PM
Hrm. They're inside, usually pretty comfortable temperature (the only temperature-regulating devices we have are openable windows and a standing lamp). Also I'm more worried about too much humidity - there's often little droplets of water inside the farm. Looks like this, by the way:

http://images.hobbytron.com/FA-ANTW1-lg.jpg

faceroll
2010-03-10, 10:52 PM
Are they exposed to much natural light or light sources with UV in it? I don't think ant eggs/larvae are pigmented, which means they could take some serious damage. I would try to recreate their natural environment as much as possible.

Condensation is a problem, as that fosters mold growth, and mold can absolutely murder insects. It can be a big problem with bees, for instance. And I've lost some mantids to mold growth.

[edit]
One thing that can kill fish, or cause them a lot of stress, is tap water, because it's chlorinated. Don't have a clue how this would affect ants or their young, though.

Serpentine
2010-03-10, 10:55 PM
So put 'em in the dark. Alright, I'll try that.

edit: No tap water, so that's fine.

Thursday
2010-03-11, 06:35 AM
Hrm. They're inside, usually pretty comfortable temperature (the only temperature-regulating devices we have are openable windows and a standing lamp). Also I'm more worried about too much humidity - there's often little droplets of water inside the farm. Looks like this, by the way:

http://images.hobbytron.com/FA-ANTW1-lg.jpg

I had one of those, -exactly the same in fact. It went mouldy pretty quickly, possibly because I'd put it in the wrong place and it got pretty humid. Humidity is the thing, and its very hard for them to control it themselves in there.. as thay can't really move the substrate about.
Was pretty cool while it lasted though, but yeah. probably put it in the dark, this time.
(I also got carried away and tried to dig out a queen for it, but she wouldn't have had enough space.. but anyway)
After that I stuck them in a plastic box full of soil with some holes cut out, and left them in my greenhouse, worked really well, but you can't see them as much..

(T'was Lasius Nig er for those who care. Edit: seems, the censor doesn't like latin names of species that cut close to certain other words.. take the space out, same as the country.)

You can get wooden frames with clear plastic sides and tubes you can run outside, that work well also, I could tell you where to get them in the UK, but anywhere else I'm not so sure.

Faceroll: I have a Beehive and all the Kit, Dying to give bees a go, but my housemates won't let me.. curse them. (Wimps! its only a bee sting..) They put up with the wasps I attract in the thousands when I keep butterflies (they are fed honey solution) so maybe I should keep quiet.

Always good to find other bug fanatics!

Serpentine
2010-03-11, 06:42 AM
Anyone else remember the old "BUGS!" magazine? I only ever read one or two of them, but oh how I loved them... The one about edible bugs has really stuck with me. Created my lifelong dream of eating honeypot ants... (I was told that you could get boxes of chocolate covered ones from a shop under David Jones in Sydney, but they weren't there when I looked :smallfrown:

Thursday
2010-03-11, 06:49 AM
Don't know if we had that...
You can buy chocolate ants, and mealworms, here though. (well, In Glastonbury anyway) They're suprisingly crunchy..

Ichneumon
2010-03-11, 06:52 AM
Biology all the way, nothing designed can beat the power of natural selection on the long run.

Serpentine
2010-03-11, 06:56 AM
Don't know if we had that...
You can buy chocolate ants, and mealworms, here though. (well, In Glastonbury anyway) They're suprisingly crunchy..Honeypot ants?
Like this:
http://www.janesoceania.com/australia_home/aust9.jpg

Thursday
2010-03-11, 06:57 AM
no, BUGs magazine..
EDIT sorry I am a fool. I'm not sure what kind of ants, but Honeypot I doubt.

Serpentine
2010-03-11, 06:58 AM
Nono, I mean the ants you can buy.

edit: Fix'd :smalltongue: Pity, they're good, or so I hear...

Thursday
2010-03-11, 06:59 AM
Gah! moving too quick for me!

Not sure what they are. I'll look next time I'm in town there.
Not those though, but I think I've herad they are good also.
Mealworms come fried in Cayenne and Paprika as well:smallsmile:.

oop theyve just called my flight. (I'm killing time in an airport internet cafe)
Will see if there are any in Scotland!

faceroll
2010-03-11, 01:03 PM
Anyone else remember the old "BUGS!" magazine? I only ever read one or two of them, but oh how I loved them... The one about edible bugs has really stuck with me. Created my lifelong dream of eating honeypot ants... (I was told that you could get boxes of chocolate covered ones from a shop under David Jones in Sydney, but they weren't there when I looked :smallfrown:

I got this book when I was a kid:
http://www.planetscott.com/_images/store/ManEatingBugs2.gif

Had a similar effect on me.

Serpentine
2010-03-11, 11:24 PM
Coooooool =D

The Vorpal Tribble
2010-03-12, 12:22 AM
Btw, speaking of technology...


*points to signature banner and encourages folks to join in*

Thajocoth
2010-03-15, 02:51 PM
Mix 'em. Write a video game with DNA code instead of C++ code.