What's Happening to the Cork Tree?

 Nobody is quite sure what's happening to the cork tree, only about eight hundred of them are left in the wild, and nearly fourteen thousand in captivity.This has leading scientists concerned about the effect it will have on the bulletin board industry. Without this precious spongy material, teachers, moms, and organized children would need to rely on an artificial surface to pin their memos. One such replacement is a rubber like material, much like what the wine industry uses for their bungs. Since wine bottles use rubber bungs and screw caps exclusively now, they are obviously not the source of the cork shortage. The rubber bulletin board is very popular as a replacement, and an independent study showed that when replaced with the artificial material, people just stopped using pins and paper memos altogether, choosing refrigerator magnets and dry erase boards to relay messages. "I like dry erase boards better anyway, cork boards always dry out and crumble," a leading mom and amateur archeologist from Los Angeles, CA. says.

As to the disappearance of the cork tree, biologists have several theories: the wild tit may be using the tree as soft bedding once chewed and spat out; it could be a possible food source for apes and beetles; as well as a biological strain of Auto Immune Deficiency Syndrome that affects plant life and some species of stone and metal, particularly zinc alloys and many noble gases. None of this is confirmed, just pure speculation and conjecture.  One scientist agreed to speak with us, he wasn't the first choice but we didn't have much to choose from.

"One of the problems is that not a single scientist has conducted any field research on the subject. It's all been word of mouth and rumors," says leading entomologist Michael Kohne of the Catholic Science Institute in Cork, Ireland. "Nobody really has time. It's not that big of a deal," says another source close to the cork industry. We speculate that some cork experts agree, and some Disagree.

Another concern is the durability of the tree itself, cork is very squishy and an entire tree made out of it tends to flop over and rot easily. The tree is also very finicky about water; half the year it needs at least 92 gallons of liquid H20 a day to keep it tumescent, and the other half it requires a great deal of snow and ice buildup that hardens around the trunk to keep it standing. The water isn't always available in those forms or quantities. So the tree will probably disappear within the next year or two according to our best guess.

The global cork industry is tremendously concerned about the depletion of the tree, but says it's production line won't skip a beat because there are plenty of alternatives. Walt Knutson, the CEO of Cork.products.net claims that they weren't going to be using it much longer anyway, and their new website name was slated to change to Synthetic.products.org. in 2013.

A shame. Cork is a cool looking tree, but it seems to be of very little use to modern day industry.

-Luther

Your Shadow: A Trick of Light?

The baffling mystery of the shadow may finally have it's explanation. For countless centuries scientists have puzzled over the question, "what is the dark blob that follows an object at rest, or while in motion?" Primitive cultures believed it to be a spirit guide or an ancestor that remains attached to you at all times, though not always visible. Others believed it was a malevolent ghost waiting for its caster to falter morally, so it could attack.

Though the shadow received its name hundreds of years ago, no one has put forth a reasonable explanation for the phenomenon...until now. Scientists believe a shadow is created when an object blocks a light source, like the sun or a tanning lamp. The light strikes the object, and light particles are prevented from moving past the blockage, leaving a silhouette behind the volume, whatever it may be. Transparent objects like windows or bottles do leave a silhouette, but it's much lighter than one cast by something with a non-translucent mass, and this isn't quite as clear to the scientific world. Dr. Taylor Waters, of the Lomas Regional Institute of Technology and Science, believes he is very close to explaining the transparency problem. "My team has made significant strides when it comes to the lighter shadow phenomenon, and I believe we'll have an answer within the next three to five years," says Dr. Waters.

The shadow mystery has many layers, such as; why does the shadow appear as an outline of the mass that forms it? Why are there no details from the mass visible, like a tie or glasses? Is the shadow two or three dimensional? Does the shadow have weight or texture? What is the shadow's purpose? And the most bewildering question of them all; why, most of the time, does the shadow look elongated or distorted in some cases, or squashed and compact in others?

Also, there a some fringe scientists who believe there exists something called "the Shadow Lag." They believe when a mass casting a shadow moves, there is a half second delay as the shadow follows. Most scientists find this insignificant and have abandoned research of the subject altogether.

Though the scientific community has figured out why the shadow exists, there are many unanswered questions remaining. I, for one, look forward to the exciting new breakthroughs still to come, and will be sure to relay that info to you a.s.a.p.
-Luther

Archery: the Failed Experiment

 When archery appeared nearly twelve thousand years ago, it seemed to be the natural successor to the atlatl, a weapon discarded by every culture save the Australian Aborigines. The bow and arrow was obviously superior, but not by much. Not to say that archery doesn't have its place; games of skill and organized competitions are immensely enhanced by those proficient with a bow. Hunting is a different story; a sling, spear, or even the classic snare will yield the best results, depending on the game one is after. 


 Here are three main reasons why archery is impractical.


 First, the bow and arrow is difficult to make. Fashioning the bow itself can take up to a year to treat and shape the wood properly, and it doesn't always work. A year could be lost on just one bow if the correct steps aren't taken. I know what you're thinking, the craftsman could make several bows at once, so at the end of the year he'd have a better chance at a properly made weapon. This doesn't make sense when you take into account that the person making the bow would most likely repeat the mistake on each bow, leaving him with who knows how many unusable weapons at the end of the year.


 The string for a bow was nearly impossible to make in the ancient world. Catgut or sinew were incredibly difficult to obtain if you weren't in close proximity to the Mediterranean. Hair, hemp, and linens were terrible substitutes, and were very susceptible to moisture and heat. The beeswax needed to guard against the elements was also a very rare item, it could only be purchased or traded for during certain times of year, and at exorbitant cost. 


 The arrows are an entirely different problem. You need your wood, you need your metal/stone, you need your fletching, all of these things took ungodly amounts of time to collect, make, and assemble. The shaft had to be harvested from a tree that grew very straight branches, shaping one with crooked wood was futile. carving or forging a proper arrowhead took days, and capturing a live bird for the fletching was a task envied by no one. All for one arrow, I might add; If you wanted more, you'd better clear your schedule, because you're in for a long work week.

 Second, the bow and arrow is difficult to use (trust me, I've tried.) Pulling back the string alone is nearly impossible if you lack natural core-strength, which most people do, especially in the ancient world. This means years of physical training to build up the necessary muscles to do the job properly, and that means a trainer, as well. Physical training means a proper diet for the best results, the best results means expensive, high quality food. I don't need to tell you that most ancient men weren't rich millionaires who could afford the  things needed to become an archer. 


 Shooting the arrow straight was very difficult, probably more difficult than the fitness regimen required to even have the opportunity to shoot one straight. Shooting an arrow straight required practice, and practice takes time, and time is money, folks. It is possible to self-teach the skills you need to shoot straight, but a trainer would definitely speed up the process. Again, trainers are expensive, unless the trainer was also the one employed to build up your physical strength, then I'm sure something could be worked out. But this is highly unlikely.


 Hitting a target is the next step, and it ain't easy. Even if you shoot straight, you have to account for wind and slight body tremors and a million other little factors that will send your shaft reeling. Don't get me started on a moving target. Very few people will accomplish something like hitting a target in motion. Or if you're in motion shooting at a target that's moving. Nearly impossible. Ask the Mongols. And you'd better hope you worked on your stamina with that trainer if you hope to shoot more than one arrow an hour. More time that we can't afford to lose.


 Third, archery in warfare just isn't all that practical. Training one man to use a bow and arrow is a tremendous job by itself, training thousands was a joke, and we can't be asked to believe that it was in any way effective when it came to actually hitting and killing an enemy assailant. I know archery was used in ancient warfare, I'm not disputing that, I'm disputing the fact that it was used in any other way than a diversionary tactic. I'll admit It had to be annoying for an advancing army to be bombarded with tiny projectiles constantly while trying to engage the enemy. Most of the shafts probably clattered harmlessly to the ground after deflecting off a soldier's armor. The real danger was slipping on a rolling shaft and losing your footing, and I'm convinced this was the real purpose of the archer in  battle.


 If both armies had regimens of archers that fired simultaneously, then no doubt at least half of the arrows collided head-on in mid-air, shattering the shafts into splinters. This would lessen the chance of a soldier slipping, but it still most likely came into play to buy a short amount of time.

 Archery just didn't make sense, and still doesn't, in my opinion. If you want dinner or to win a war, buy yourself a sling or a spear or a snare. Even a Colt King cobra with a six inch barrel would do the trick. Just don't buy a bow and arrow.