My fascination with dinosaurs comes from a childhood fascination with where we come from —what existed before people, coupled with the science-fiction sense that we have about dinosaurs. Monsters, aliens and ghosts may exist, however, there is no real evidence toward their existence. But dinosaurs, they did exist. And the more I find out about them and why they became extinct, the more the narrative of what came before me evolves.

Scientists released a consensus Thursday saying that dinosaurs most likely became extinct due to a six-mile wide meteor that hit the Earth while traveling at 45,000 mph. They looked at hundreds of land and sea-floor clay layers to examine microscopic fossils and chemistry dating back to the event.

Dinosaurs are for non-believers, like creationism is for Christians. I want to know where the world started and how it started. What were the first events and how did those events came to pass? Dinosaurs fulfill a larger need to make sense of the world and how I fit into it. I just hope I'm not blasted off the planet by a six-mile wide meteor.

NASA got schooled yesterday by a 13-year-old boy from Germany.  Nico Marquardt calculated that there is a one in 450 chance the astroid Apophis could collide with Earth.  NASA had calculated the chance to be one in 45,000.

NASA had previously estimated the chances at only 1 in 45,000 but told its sister organisation, the European Space Agency (ESA), that the young whizzkid had got it right.

The schoolboy took into consideration the risk of Apophis running into one or more of the 40,000 satellites orbiting Earth during its path close to the planet on April 13 2029.

And to think, I was merely struggling with the quadratic equation when I was a wee lass of 13.

Remember last January when Bush made his state of the economy speech, saying, "You can't compete in the 21st century unless we're educating young engineers and physicists and chemists -- unless our kids have the skills necessary to fill the jobs of the 21st century." Well, it turns out a recent report from the Urban Institute shows that every year the number of of science and engineering graduates (with a 4-year degree) outnumbers S&E job openings in the United States by a ratio three to one.

Instead, Science Progress today promotes the idea of cross-discipline studying when it comes to science. After all, it would be nice to have politicians and staffers who understood the science behind stem cell research or biofuels. It'd be nice if science journalists understood the subjects they were writing about. The list of cross-nondisciplinary jobs goes  on. The bottom line is that if we produce an army of scientists and engineers, we'd better have jobs for all of them.

Scientists say female-female conception IS possible.

How long til the right catches wind of this and bans any possible testing to prove it true?

When Emory University primatologist Frans de Waal read a news story that said Microsoft's chief executive, Steve Ballmer, had hurled a chair across the room on hearing an employee was going to work for rival Google, the scientist immediately made a connection with his own research: "When I see such behavior, I think of a chimpanzee."

There's a lot to pick apart in this Chicago Tribune report from an academic conference on women's sexuality. But what's missing from the article, though hopefully not from discussion among these experts themselves, is an accounting for social conditioning. To what extent are women just not taught to value their own sexual pleasure equally to that of men? Or to feel ashamed of their bodies and sexuality in a way that inhibits them in bed? Check this out:

Since the 1960s, researchers have operated under a variation of the simple model proposed by William Masters and Virginia Johnson that says the human sexual response starts with desire, progresses through excitement or arousal and ends with orgasm. But experts argued that notion might reflect the experience of men more than women, many of whom don't see orgasm as a goal.

In recent years the field has moved toward a more complicated model based on the observation that many women go into a sexual encounter without being in the mood--perhaps they're seeking intimacy or hoping to please their partner--and may not really want sex until after they become aroused.

But it wasn't until very recently that anyone thought to test those theories by asking women. Sand, who was awarded a prize for his innovative research, found that 57 percent of women felt a straightforward model best described their sexual experience. The 29 percent who endorsed the more complicated model were more likely to have sexual problems.