Evolution is working against us in two ways in the weight department:
We have evolved to like fatty, sugary foods as they were a rare and valuable source of energy, so when we do come across them, the natural thing to do is to eat as much of it as you can as this helped us to survive. Unfortunately these types of food are in cheap, easily accessible abundance and they are making us fat.
We have also evolved to find what is healthy attractive so that we could produce healthy, fit offspring. Obesity is not attractive because it is unhealthy. It is an evelutionary response to find obese people unattractive and unfortunately this is commonly vented through jokes and mockery.
Those of you who argue that by discriminating against overweight people we are somehow motivating them to lose weight, but it doesn't work like that. All it does is make them feel like they are less than human. Information and intervention programs that help to develop knowledge and behaviour that supports a healthy lifestyle starting at a young age is the key, not discrimination.

I've read research elsewhere that long-term relationships in general usually fail around the four-year mark, regardless of marriage. The theory I read states that before this stage what we are experiencing is "limerance" - or the "can't stop thinking about you" type of love. This causes us to see the object of our desire through rose-coloured glasses, but after about the four year mark when the limerance fades, we are confronted with what the person is really like and we can't always handle it. But when we can still love and acccept a person for who they are past the crazy stage of limerance, that's real love.

Wait, I meant masochist! I always get those two mixed up!

Sadist!

# 3. I get a meal and I avoid a beat down by my owner when I get to my destination for losing all of my hay! Hay isn't THAT heavy!

If you go back enough generations, we're ALL related.

I agree with bean. Total inside job!

Evil Pundit - "This may be applicable to human attention."
And it is. One way that psychologists try to understand constructs that aren't directly measurable (like attention or memory) is to create a computer model - that is, how would a computer be able to achieve the same?
I know what you're thinking - this sounds stupid. How can you compare the biological brain to a mechanical computer?
But computer models have been fairly useful in helping us understand the possible ways that we for example, percieve, encode, and recall information.

I've read a few studies that argued that there was a link between creativity and psychotisism.

I can gleek on demand (not just when I yawn, although sometimes it happens accidentally when I do), raise one eyebrow, draw the 6, and wiggle my ears. Yessss!

These days, science does actually play a large role in what should and shouldn't go into the DSM-IV. The DSM-IV, which was developed in 1994 is far more based on empirical research that was commissioned to find why certain things should go into the DSM.
Oh, and I remember you Terry, how is Xenu treating you?

Clearly man candles are "mandles", not "manterns".

I'm severely allergic to cat hair. Owning a cat would probably make my life shorter.
And in response to MoonCake's comment, I don't think it quite works that way. I grew up with cats and it hasn't made me any less allergic.
People with dustmite allergies live in the constant presence of dustmites (there is no escaping them, they're EVERYWHERE), and as far as we know, this doesn't reduce their allergic reactions.
I suppose we could do an experiment, but there would be no way of having a control no-dustmite group unless we locked those subjects naked in a plastic bubble with no fabric.

Well if Bell really was the first to use a telephone then I share the same birthday as the telephone. I was born 110 years after the 10th of March, 1876. Woo!