Education is my best investment. Everything else can be taken away, but that.

Interesting premise, but it needs work. For example, something more than just, "alone in an expanse of nothing." Try something like, "I stand on a carpet of moonless anguish, unfurnished joy forever wanting, forever unfulfilled, forever empty." I know my lines are not much better, but poetry should paint pictures with words and sounds of words, not just describe but feel. Its like walking into a darkened room and having the author say, the room was dark - boring. Now if the author describes the room as being, black as a starless summer night, but without the warmth of the crickets song, now at least you get a feeling for what the room might be like. Your's is a great first draft, but I am sure you could make it much more than it currently is. Use your basic idea and make it sing, feel, sting, and borrow life from sadness, while making joy feel like pain. Nothing is real but the agony of loneliness.

Generally because it is easier to blame others than to take a good hard look in the mirror.

Inside my mind, time is simply a convenient way to organize my own reality. But time is not fluid, because as I think about things, I begin reliving my own versions of past realities . The Doctor is correct, Time And Relative Dimensions In Space (TARDIS - Doctor Who), we've all got our own TARDIS right inside that thing we call the cranium - the mind. What time is it? Depends on when, where, who, why, and in what way you ask... But my time is mine, and yours is yours. When I'm having fun- time flies. When I'm sad, it stalls. It's all relative to my own reality.

A car driven by anyone, drunk or not, is a potential ballistic weapon.

I disagree. For example, what would be the answer to the following question: "What is the exact numerical equivalent to pi, to the last digit?" Or how about this one: "Please demonstrate, or how do you trisect any angle using just a straight edge and a compass." Just two examples of questions without answers I thought of off the top of my head. Neither has an exact answer, and as such are still unanswered.

Depends on what you want to use it for. I have a MacBook Pro and use both windows and Mac software on it because I use it for school and research. But if all you want to do is basic things like watch videos, email, web applications, etc, then get whatever you can afford and be happy. But if you need or want to do a specific thing, then the MacBook would be your better option or even one of the cheaper computers would be good. If you don't need a laptop, but want a computer, I'd suggest my other computer, the MacMini. Check it out on the Apple site. it does everything my laptop does, but is six inches square by two inches tall. I used my old PC computer mouse and video with it and it cost me nine hundred with the extra's I got it with. The base model - still very good for most people, was $699.00 Students get it cheaper. Again, check out the store for further details. But I like it too. I even have everything linked together and sometimes use both computers in tandem when looking at multiple documents at once so I can better compare them. Hope this helps.

Someone once said, whomever raises his voice first, loses. Why do the arguments (as in discussions and debates, not yelling and screaming) have to be heated? What happened to being cool under pressure and making dynamic, informed, and spirited explanations that use justification and reasoning to counter less thought out or irrational thought? Why use barbs and squabbles when a kind word pisses off that annoying relative that much better? My favorite dialogs in plays and or movies always involve conflict, in which the characters never raise their voices, and yet makes such great points that everyone laughs. For that reason, I prefer watching British parliament over the US Congress too. If you want to see some great debates, check out the British on-line. Even if you don't know what the heck they are talking about, I am sure you (whomever is reading this) will appreciate the "art" of the arguments taking place. Their technique is wonderful, funny, and smart in every sense of the word. Too bad our own politicians seldom rise to such elegance.

According to my university science professors, evolution itself is a fact. The "theory of evolution" is one actually one of many ideas about how evolution actually works. Each theory contests certain parts of the overall idea of the law of evolution. For example, one theory states evolution moves by jumps and spurts with long periods of sameness. Another claims evolution is a long drawn out process. Still a third claims it is a combination of the two ideas. And yet other ideas state evolution varies depending on the creature and plant changing. Still others disagree with all the others. In short, there are a series of evolutionary ideas that often conflict with one another, while it is a fact that things evolved and most continue to evolve to this day. As far as the dinosaur is concerned, there have been plenty of creatures found with intact soft tissues, most found in very cold climates. For example, one man was found in the mountains in France that was several thousand years old. He was found with his tools and arrows and discovered to have been murdered. There is a really cool documentary on the Ice man on line. When I lived above the arctic circle, we found several tusks and fur left over from wooly mammoths in just the three years I was there. In another case, scientist dug up some Eskimos to find out if the influenza virus from 2000 was the same one that killed thousands back in 1908. The reasons they chose the Eskimos was because they were not embalmed. But even so, their bodies were nearly perfectly preserved and still had body fluids (the arctic tundra is like an icebox). But I'm just a historian who's specialty is the history of science and technology, so I'm not an expert on evolution, but I have looked into some of the aspects. But I'm betting if you checked out issues of either Scientific America or the Journal Science, or Paleontology Magazine, you'd probably find a more definitive answer.

Good answers, each and every one of you. I'm proud of you all for taking a stand on the idea that you don't have to be religious to be moral. This seems to be in direct contradiction to many of the answers I've read lately. Makes me proud to be an American (Freedom of Speech...).