It simply means that there is not enough scientific data to support any hypothesis conclusively, not that they have no clue whatsoever. Do you have any data to back up your hypothesis or is it just "common sense"?

More to the point, I wonder if a more spherical shape isn't more efficient in micro gravity and this is what drives the change. The heart no longer has to pump blood uphill, so it would stand to reason that a shape which generates less force while using less energy would be optimum, and out bodies tend to be pretty good at finding the most energy efficient way of adapting to the environment they are in.

You have to appreciate the irony that they find a new symbiotic fungus with clear health benefits and immediately try and use it to develop a novel way to kill fungus.

When you restrict calories in, the first thing that happens is your body lowers it's energy expenditure by making you tired and lowering non-essential processes in the body. Then it will catabolise muscle, because muscle is more expensive metabolically than fat. Only then will it start to lower fat. You will get to your target weight, but you will have less muscle mass (unhealthy in itself) burning less energy and a body which thinks it's in a state of famine and will drive you to binge eat to increase fat stores whenever food is available. In short you will lose weight but will set yourself up for even more weight gain in the future, or at least a lifetime of chronic stress inducing hunger. This is why 98% of people who do calorie restriction diets fail.

You're also trans-fat intolerant. Try coconut oil.

Still, it's an interesting topic for discussion

What we have here as far as I can see is two incidents caused by human error in which there were no serious consequences. What's the news, that humans make mistakes? If people can make stupid mistakes in a nuclear power station and not cause any serious problems it just shows that the systems and procedures in place are well designed and managed.

Indeed. This is how the dark ages came about.

We don't just learn maths in order to calculate. Maths trains our minds to reason.

No. prehistoric humans had a life expectancy of 25-40 years. Life expectancy is the mean age at death not the maximum lifespan. Given that we are genetically identical to prehistoric man, I think it's fair to say that they're maximum lifespan was somewhere between 100 and 120 years just like us.

I don't think they exist

The problem I have is that all the issues you raise also apply to pedestrians, yet suggest to a pro-helmet cyclist that they should wear a helmet when walking across the road and they just laugh. I have no problem with people wearing helmets, in fact I would encourage it, but I want the choice for myself.

Thunderbolt uses active cables. There is a circuit at each end of the cable which handles the physical transmission. This means the cables will always be expensive, although costs will probably come down if thunderbolt becomes mainstream and economies of scale kick in. It's also a reason why thunderbolt probably won't become mainstream.

I also find the idea that there was something unique about Einstein's brain that made him a genius. IMHO what set him apart wasn't his academic brilliance, which was nothing special going by his school performance, it was his ability to think up daft questions like "if I were riding a light beam and shone a torch in front of me, how fast would the light from the torch travel?".

Our brains are around 30% larger in relation to other primates, hence we need additional nutrients for ours to develop fully.