I wonder if this is related to poorer eyesight as we age. If we assume recognizing a face from a modest distance and distinguishing one person form another is more important than some other recognition tasks (recognition tasks?). It would certainly seem harder. So maybe your body just assumes it better up it's game as your eyes degenerate or a Cave Lion eats one of them. It would also be interesting to see if there's a correlation between poorer eyesight (not necessarily due to age) and this. Although I assume that most of the subjects either had pretty decent vision or generally corrected their vision with glasses.

It sometimes takes the form of a giant blue linksys router. So that we may better worship it.

This is an excellent posting. However, if the pamphlet contains illegal information (like child pornography- I know the example is overused) or otherwise contains some sort of pertinent evidence. Then the prosecution should and probably will use it(the type of paper or printer ect) to find the makers identity. I see little difference in using the logged i.p. to find the identity of someone who posts a message if you have a warrant to do it. As a previous article pointed out: we are not lawyers. But I am continually astonished that anyone is the least bit surprised that a company can be court-ordered to release personal information. The police can look at your bare bum and root through all of your bad poetry without so much as a by-your-leave if a judge sends a warrant to their car. If a judge orders me to release the ip address of a poster. I must(if I have chosen to keep a record of it). What has previously been contested is whether or not police can obtain this information WITHOUT obtaining any special permission in much the same way that they don't need permission to obtain your home address.

Unless it the aliens were made of that terrible DARK MATTER. Which is theoretically immune to all forms of attack except the power of love, and perhaps the Blazing Sword.