Theory - Dinosaur Extinction vs Gravity

I've long had a thought about the extinction of the great dinosaurs that seems in complete contrast to current theories. I suspect it's because mine is full of flaws (like that the period of extinction spans thousands of years perhaps) but it's always made me wonder.

So, here it is:

Dinosaur Extinction Theory
Forget notion about some catistrophic event (e.g. Meteor strike) or climate change - both of which have merit. My theory is that it was Gravity. How so I hear you ask?

Well, lets look at our current biology. The largest terrestrial animal is the elephant - nothing bigger, yet bigger is supposedly good. What about Giraffe? Their necks are so long, that if they fall to the ground and are unable to right themselves quickly, the blood flow rushing to their heads will kill them. Then consider the largest animal - whales. They can exist in their watery environment, but beach themselves and they are suffocated by their body mass. And lastly, consider man. The tallest a man can get is something under 7 feet. When this has been exceeded, the individuals have died young because of organ failure - they're simply unable to cope with the size of the individual.

Yet, we're meant to accept that terrestrial animals perhaps 5-10 times larger than the largest terrestrial being currently in existance lived for Eon's on the planent! Please...

Something drastic has had to have changed - and surely all this can be is the effect of gravity. The cause? Massive meteorite strike? Perhaps an abundance of meteorite strikes over a prolonged period causing a gradual build up in the mass of the earth (yes, yes, I know, a grain of sand added to huge boulder isn't going to make an significant difference - but hey, it's my theory and I'm allowed to make this up as I go along). Could it be that the subterranian magma effects have changed over time (increased cooling has lead to increased mass)?

Who knows? All I know is that the paradox between what we know today vs what we're told to accept from prehistoric times worries me - and this presents a possible explaination.

I actually found someone (who I must admit coined the theory before I had, but I'd long thought about it myself but had never put it in writing) who also pushed this theory. He was an Iraqi scientist but as this was just before the Iraq war, I felt uncomfortable talking about such trivialities with him and thus never sought out his opinion. Pity, I don't even know if he's still alive...

Prediction - Nat/Lib "Merger" is a Scam!

For someone who only discovered a week ago that his party is about to become defunct, Laurence Springborg looks remarkably at ease with his predicament. So, it has me wondering if Mr Springborg knew earlier than he is willing to admit (which would make Mr Vaille's position even less tenable) or (more likely) could it be that other externalities make this deal SO attractive that it can't be dismissed?

So what's the deal? My money's on a temporary or bogus union - 5 mins after the election (assuming they win), the Nat's will be allowed to reform and the faithful allowed to "demerge" from the Liberals - thus returning us to the status quo.

So why all this skullduggery? Well, for one, the current voting system in Queensland doesn't really support "aligned" parties - thanks to optional preferential voting. It has decimated the coalition's ability to win electorates, particularly when they can't help themselves by running two candidates. Equally, Labor faces the same problems when/if the Green vote is mobilised.

Of course, this simply underscores the differences between the two parties as it highlights that liberal voters don't want to preference the Nat's and visa versa (after all, optional means that it's the voters choice (not some party room deal)) - so I can imagine that living with the truth is hard.

However, I think the biggest driver for this "merger" was the announcement a couple of weeks ago that Family First would contest EVERY seat in the coming state election. "Oh dear, it's One Nation all over again!" Combine this with Optional Preferential Voting and the conservative vote will be decimated leaving the coalition in the political wilderness for another 3 years.

So, my guess at their strategy is as follows:

1. Regain power at whatever cost (in the short term - particularly federally).
2. Reform the National Party and "demerger"
3. Repeal the Optional Preferential Voting legislation
4. Stay in power forever...
   

The bottom line - they're running scared of Family First and the power that's been granted to voters by Optional Preferential Voting. Question is, will it work or will this "slight of hand" be seen for what it is ... political suicide for the Nat's!!!

Regards, Mark B

Prediction - AV Convergence - Next Big Thing

So what happens when the run on flat screen TVs runs it's course? Well, the next "big thing" IMHO will be the turn of AV Convergence. Say what?

Basically I mean the turn of HTPC. Except, more than that. I think this market will take off once:

• The equipment looks more like stereo components.
• You can drive nearly everything via dials and knobs on the front of the unit.
• Includes the following:
• Digital TV & PVR
• Timeshifting
• Digital Radio (free to air and Internet)
• DVD/CD Player/Recorder
• Image Library
• Front side controls (volume, input selector, tuner, power off, CD/DVD controls)
• Front side AV inputs (accepting Digital AND Analogue)
• And most importantly, is affordable.

They should've been more invasive except manufacturers have made them look and act like PCs instead of stereo components. Once they wake up to that mistake, watch them take off.

Thoughts - Barnarby's True Mind - Stuffed!

Well, we learnt today the true mind of Barnarby Joyce following his announcement that we should pillage Antartica. Why? Well, in the eyes of Barnarby, if we don't, someone else will - so we might as well get in there and rape the resouces before someone else gets a clue before hand.

So Barnarby, in 1939, rather than objecting to Hitler invading Poland, should we have gone in first? Does this also mean you back Iran's plan to gain the nuclear bomb? Because, if their neighbours are planning to do it, we might as well get in first?

Where's the morality in your argument Barnaby? Why not take a stand in the face of anyone daring to move into Antartica and exploit its resources? Why aren't we screaming blue murder at the Japanese for the massacre of Whales? Why aren't we screaming at Bush and Howard about the perils of global warming and that this nonsense has to stop?