How do you explain to a 6-year-old what it’s like to give birth? This is something that many parents have to consider as their little ones get more and more curious. The Mom in the video below hadn’t explained the process yet when she overheard quite an interesting conversation between her two little ones. During it, her 6-year-old confidently tells her 4-year-old that, when their mom gave birth to them, she was “foaming at the mouth.” Clearly, there was a misunderstanding with the info this kid got, but Mom could not handle not knowing where she got it from or how. As a result, she and her husband sat down for a chat. If you’ve ever seen the dadchats social media account, you’ll know that this couple posts videos like this all the time. And it’s no wonder why! The stories they have to tell, and the way they deliver them, never fails to delight everyone, no matter if you currently have kids of your own. So, to find out the mystery behind why this 6-year-old thinks that giving birth involves foaming at the mouth, watch the video below! @dadchats This is a good day with @momchats ♬ original sound – dadchats That’s right — this adorable kid believes giving birth involves foaming at the mouth, all because of a misunderstanding over a single word. When she asked about babies, Dad thought she said rabies. This simple mistake led to one of the most hilarious misunderstandings, especially for these parents who can’t stop losing it! Truly, their laughter is just as entertaining as the misunderstanding itself. One Misheard Word Leaves This Curious Kid With a Hilarious Misunderstanding About Giving Birth “It’s a very dad thing to not even question why a six-year-old is asking about rabies and just start dispensing knowledge,” one person points out in the comment section, with another adding, “I love that you can see the exact moment when each of you realized what happened.” You can find the source of this story’s featured image here! The post Mom Shares 6-Yr-Old’s Hilarious Misunderstanding Of What Happens During Birth appeared first on InspireMore.

Jefferson Starship emerged from the transformation of the iconic 1960s band Jefferson Airplane into a new entity that reflected changes in the musical landscape and the personal evolution of its members. The transition was marked by a shift from the psychedelic rock of Jefferson Airplane to a more straightforward rock sound mixed with elements of pop and AOR. Jefferson Starship was officially formed in 1974 by Paul Kantner and other Airplane members, along with some new faces, to explore these new musical directions. Their debut album Dragon Fly was released that same year. The band enjoyed considerable success throughout the The post Complete List Of Jefferson Starship Band Members appeared first on ClassicRockHistory.com.

So, there you are, scrubbing away, belting out your favorite tunes, when suddenly… you’re attacked! By a flimsy piece of waterproof fabric. We’ve all been there at some point, grumbling as we try to un-stick ourselves from the shower curtain that’s randomly decided to billow in at us – which kind of raises the question: why does this always happen?For a seemingly everyday problem, finding a solution was much harder than you might think – and the true answer is probably not the explanation you’ve been given before. One of the most popular answers, for example, is that of Bernoulli’s Principle – a theorem from fluid dynamics which links the speed of a fluid with its pressure and height. “The Bernoulli effect is the principle that explains how an airplane's wings produce lift,” explained mechanical engineer David Schmidt in a 2001 article for Scientific American. “It says that as a fluid accelerates, the pressure drops.”Basically, the idea is that water from the shower speeds up the air around it, decreasing the pressure on the inside of the curtain. Meanwhile, no such effect is going on outside the shower, and so the higher pressure forces the curtain inwards.But there’s one rather large problem with this explanation: “the Bernoulli effect is based on a balance between pressure forces and acceleration, and does not allow for the presence of droplets,” Schmidt explained. “Nor, according to my calculations, is it responsible for the curtain deflection.”So much for Bernoulli – perhaps the other popular explanation can help us out?  Known as the “buoyancy theory”, this one says that the hot water from the shower causes the air inside the curtain to heat up, thus reducing its density. Again, the air outside the shower is unaffected, and so this cooler, denser air rushes inwards, pushing the curtain in as it does so.But again, we see a flaw with this argument: “the curtain will suck inward toward a cold shower, too,” Schmidt pointed out. Throw that theory in the trashcan too, then.Luckily, Schmidt had at his disposal not only a weird fascination with disobedient shower accessories, but also precisely the knowledge and equipment needed to figure out the real answer. As a professor of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, specializing in the dynamics of liquid sprays, his day job involved computer simulation technology that, well, pretty much nobody else in the world had access to.“I realized that [others] were all weighing in with their opinions,” Schmidt told Wired in 2001, “and with these computer simulations I was doing, I had something at my fingertips that I could use to answer it.”Unlike previous explanations for the shower curtain effect, Schmidt’s program allowed him to include thousands of minuscule real-life nuances – the distortion of the shower droplets as they fall through the air and interact with each other, for example; the effects of the droplets breaking up as they fall, and the impact of drag on their speed and direction; all things that big-picture answers such as the Bernoulli Principle or the buoyancy effect simply couldn’t account for.It took two weeks of calculations – this was 2001, after all; computers were slower back then – but Schmidt’s work came good. After years of debate, the shower curtain problem finally had an answer – and, for his discovery (which he swears wasn’t done on company time), Schmidt was awarded the Ig Nobel Prize in Physics.“Basically, a vortex sets up,” Schmidt explained. “It's like a hurricane (of air) turned on its side, and in the center of that is low pressure, and that pulls in near the middle of the curtain. But because of the way tension works in a curtain you get the bottom moving in.”Luckily, the effect is pretty weak – so if you’re really bothered by the daily attack of the shower curtain, there’s an easy solution to that, too.“The forces generated by this airflow […] are only sufficient to pull light, thin curtains inward. That explains why people with heavy plastic curtains typically don't have this problem,” Schmidt wrote in Scientific American. “Also, if someone has poor water pressure or a poorly atomizing showerhead, they may not see the curtain suck in.”So, he advised, “the easiest thing to do is to sew weights in the bottom. Or, if you have a metal tub, magnets can hold the curtain in place.”

Sam McKee: When considering human settlements on the Moon, Mars and further afield, much attention is given to the travel times, food and radiation risk. We’ll undoubtedly face a harsh environment in deep space and some thinkers have been pointing to genome editing as a way to ensure that humans can tolerate the severe conditions as they venture further into the solar system. In January, I was fortunate to attend a much-anticipated debate between astronomer royal Lord Martin Rees and Mars exploration advocate Dr Robert Zubrin. The event at the British Interplanetary Society took on the topic of whether the exploration of Mars should be human or robotic. In a recent book called The End of Astronauts, Lord Rees and co-author Donald Goldsmith outline the benefits of exploration of the solar system using robotic spacecraft and vehicles, without the expense and risk of sending humans along for the ride. Dr Zubrin supports human exploration. Where there was some agreement was over Rees’s advocacy of using gene editing technology to enable humans to overcome the immense challenges of becoming an interplanetary species. Our genome is all the DNA present in our cells. Since 2011, we have been able to easily and accurately edit genomes. First came a molecular tool called Crispr-Cas9, which today can be used in a high school lab for very little cost and has even been used on the International Space Station. Then came techniques called base and prime editing, through which miniscule changes can be made in the genome of any living organism. The potential applications of gene editing for allowing us to travel further are almost limitless. One of the most problematic hazards astronauts will encounter in deep space is a higher dosage of radiation, which can cause havoc with many processes in the body and increase the longer-term risk of cancer. Perhaps, using genome editing, we could insert genes into humans from plants and bacteria that are able to clean up radiation in the event of radioactive waste spills and nuclear fallout. It sounds like science fiction, but eminent thinkers such as Lord Rees believe this is key to our advancement across the solar system. Identifying and then inserting genes into humans that slow down aging and counter cellular breakdown could also help. We could also engineer crops that resist the effects of exposure to radioactivity as crews will need to grow their own food. We could also personalise medicine to an astronaut’s needs based on their particular genetic makeup. Imagine a future where the human genome is so well understood it has become pliable under this new, personalised medicine. Humans are not well adapted for life off-world. Genes for extremes Tardigrades are microscopic animals sometimes referred to as “water bears”. Experiments have shown that these tiny creatures can tolerate extreme temperatures, pressures, high radiation and starvation. They can even tolerate the vacuum of space. Geneticists are eager to understand their genomes and a paper published in Nature sought to uncover the key genes and proteins that give the miniature creatures this extraordinary stress tolerance. If we could insert some of the genes involved into crops, could we make them tolerant to the highest levels of radiation and environmental stress? It’s worth exploring. Even more intriguing is whether inserting tardigrade genes into our own genome could make us more resilient to the harsh conditions in space. Scientists have already shown that human cells in the lab developed increased tolerance to X-ray radiation when tardigrade genes were inserted into them. Transferring genes from tardigrades is just one speculative example of how we might be able engineer humans and crops to be more suited to space travel. We’ll need much more research if scientists are ever to get to this stage. However, in the past, several governments have been keen to enforce tight restrictions on how genome editing is used, as well as on other technologies for inserting genes from one species into another. Germany and Canada are among the most cautious, but elsewhere restrictions seem to be relaxing. In November 2018, the Chinese scientist He Jiankui announced that he had created the first gene edited babies. He had introduced a gene into the unborn twins that confers resistance to HIV infection. The scientist was subsequently jailed. But he has since been released and allowed to carry out research again. In the new space race, certain countries may go to lengths with genome editing that other nations, especially in the west where restrictions are already tight, may not. Whoever wins would reap enormous scientific and economic benefits. If Rees and the other futurists are right, this field has the potential to advance our expansion into the cosmos. But society will need to agree to it. It’s likely there will be opposition, because of the deep-seated fears of altering the human species forever. And with base and prime editing now having advanced the precision of targeted gene editing, it’s clear that the technology is moving faster than the conversation. One country or another is likely to take the leap where others pull back from the brink. Only then will we find out just how viable these ideas really are. Until then, we can only speculate with curiosity, and perhaps excitement too. Sam McKee, Associate Tutor and PhD Candidate in Philosophy of Science, Manchester Metropolitan University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The post To colonize other planets, we will have to use genome editing appeared first on Anomalien.com.

Matt Kittle at The Federalist found some serious bias by omission when Mediaite's "Press Club" podcast brought on Politico reporter Eugene Daniels to discuss how he is one of the few liberal-media reporters who was assigned to cover Vice President Kamala Harris.  Mediaite pushed the 45-minute interview with this quote: “'The excitement this week, it’s insane. Not two, but three points in just a few days into Biden’s deficit is huge,' Daniels told Mediaite editor in chief Aidan McLaughlin." Kittle noted: What McLaughlin curiously didn’t get around to, according to the podcast’s transcript, is why the esteemed president of the White House Correspondents’ Association falsely accused Brian Kilmeade of Fox & Friends of a racist remark. Daniels’ race-baiting post on X, after all, helped the atrocious accusation go viral.  Daniels and others jumped on Twitter to accuse Kilmeade of racism after he criticized Harris for skipping a speech before Congress by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to campaign at a “college” sorority in Indianapolis. Daniels, and others, claimed they heard Kilmeade say “colored” sorority.  “He said ‘college’!” black talk host Charlamagne tha God told his audience on his nationally syndicated show “The Breakfast Club,” calling the manufactured outrage “ridiculous.” Daniels backed down and deleted the tweet: I spoke to Fox News about this and plan on speaking to Brian when he is off air. They've made clear to me that he used college, not colored. The audio is garbled but I am going to take Brian and his team at their word. pic.twitter.com/PNNV15xbfe — Eugene Daniels (@EugeneDaniels2) July 24, 2024 Fox issued a statement, saying, “Eugene Daniels’ now deleted tweet completely misquoted and unnecessarily maligned Brian Kilmeade who clearly said college sorority.” Kittle added "Mediaite’s McLaughlin should be well aware of Daniels’ accusation and the damage it’s caused. His publication has reported on every bit of it." Kittle wrote he emailed McLaughlin “Why did you not ask him about the one thing that actually brought Mr. Daniels to the public’s collective attention this week? Seems like an important subject." He received on response. Mediaite, like many media outlets, are good at "No Comment." Mediaite's editor/podcast host displayed anti-Trump bias in his questions to Daniels: "Trump is historically unpopular as a political figure, and he had, to put it mildly, a fairly wacky presidency, left office on not great grounds." Naturally, Daniels -- a regular pundit on liberal networks -- toed the Harris campaign line on the "border czar":  McLAUGHLIN: ..a bunch of outlets wrote fact checks insisting that Harris was never technically crowned border czar by Biden, that she was tasked with tackling the root causes of immigration in a few Central American countries. You’ve been covering Harris for all this time. Is that a silly distinction? How much of a role did she have in the response to the border? And are Republicans within bounds to refer to her as a border czar because of her role there? DANIELS: She wasn’t the border czar. It’s just not true. And I’m not defending, if you go back, I’ve written some tough stories on the woman, but she just wasn’t the border czar. Don't buy the "I write tough stories on Kamala" line.

Decent propaganda is usually subtler than the media’s current attempt to rewrite the vice president’s story.

The Olympic Games are not perfect. But they have an undeniable stature and power.

Whether culture is downstream from law or upstream from politics, it seems to be the pro-life movement’s widest area of opportunity currently.

The ‘journalist’ who held three Israeli hostages captive in his home received financial and other support from People Media Project in Washington State.