You know, I checked it out and it's really not for blogs that post original article based content. It's really more for places that have links and short descriptions. Great for Neat-o-rama but not so good for theWAREHOUSE.

Thanks for the heads up, though.

Well dang, that seems neat. I'm popping over to investigate.

It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown!!!

This is wonderful.

What does this "server move" business entail? Does Neat-o-rama actually run its own server? Color me impressed. Are you just switching hosts? - eugh, that's a pain enough as it is. Either way I hope it goes smoothly for you!

And yes, those swans are cute.

I completely agree, D2D....part of why I absolutely can't stand most of what's on TV these days. It's so purely concentrated to be full of melodrama and suspense that the plot and characters don't even matter any more. Even worse on those stupid ultra-gameshows (deal or no deal, 1v100, etc)....it's just awful.

Heh, I almost mispelled "awful" as "waffle"....

I have this on DVD. I picked it up for something like $4 at a "getting rid of our crap" sale at a FYI store. It's fascinating from a historical film point of view, but boring as watching toast for today's "super audiences."

I love the VOS cylinder.

I'd never pay for it, of course, but I just think it's neat.

And sam, dang, kid...put that angst into some grammar lessons.

Alex: Thanks! I thought so too! When I talked to the owner she told me a story. She went to a garage sale and asked about a cat carrier. Turns out the owner had given the very same cat to a friend, who in turn gave it up to adoption. The woman who now owns it got the very same cat. Small world. Everyone involved in the story knew it only had one eye, so it must have lost it when it was very young. I've seen a cat that was born with only one eye; it's mostly healed over with skin. This cat, Zack, isn't completely healed over, but definitely had lost it a long time ago.

A very, very friendly cat that would've made a great addition to our two kitties, but he wasn't ours, and I was very very glad to find the owner.

"indulge sensationalized cruelty like good old Carl does, I know right where to go. But not here."

WHOAH whoah whoah rafael, you seem to have completely misunderstood the point of my comment. I do not in any remote sense condone the cruel mistreatment of animals. I merely posted the information because it was completely relevant to the Neatorama post which is in fact "neat" from a historical and curiosity-based perspective. If you want to deny the existence of HISTORY then that is your business but I find what people have done in the past in the name of science not only fascinating but also a grounding for the moral IMPROVEMENT of our conduct as a society towards the future.

Just this morning, literally, I rescued a cat that i found in my parking lot. I could have ignored it. I could have shot it! (if I owned any guns, which I don't). But no. I rescued it and called all over town to various places. Finally someone called back and reported that a cat owner was desperately missing her cat. So I brought the fellow back to her.

Indulge in "sensationalized cruelty" ? I THINK NOT.

By the way, here's a picture of the cat. It only has one eye. He's pretty darn cool and very friendly. His name is Zack:

http://www.carlh.com/images/fuzz_fuzz.jpg

Actually it's easy to find info (including pics and video (yes video!)) if you just google the Alliterative "edison elephant electrocution"

You'll love this: Edison electrocuted an elephant to show the dangers of electricity. Really.

Wait, is that calling the agnostics who question it stupid (cleverly), or is it calling the theory stupid?

Because if it's a blanket insult towards one of the world's largest religions, it's pretty darn stupid and offensive.

Congratulations man! Well, congratulations both of you! Well...congrats all three, really...haha. I have no useful advice. Just...yay!

Fascinating. It's surprising how often the bible's record of history gets proven right over the reactionary "scientific" supposition. Weird.

Or more likely it's "hey I walked X-time" and "it should take X-time" to get back.

Way to go, scientists.