We get spam comments on this blog. Lots of them.

Worse still, we have to wade through them all. For some reason, we’ve been totally stymied when it comes to finding a way to ensure that no real comments end up in our spam folder. As a result, I’m often in there, separating wheat from chaff.

(Wheat usually occurs about 1 out of 50 times, but we get so much spam–and so many comments–that that may be equivalent to 20 comments a day.)

So I’ve been neck deep in spam, and in the process, I’ve noticed something odd. Every once and a while, I come across spam comments that are funny, poetic…even kind of moving. I’m guessing they’re still robotically generated….but I almost kinda want to publish them.

And so, adopting a make-lemonade philosophy, I’m creating a kind of “greatest hits” list of spam lines. Here are some samples:

I don;t know how you find the time to write so well but here is a little something
100,000 sperm and you were the fastest?

Love is atemporary insanity curable by marriage.

I made my money by selling too soon.

You can make a saxophone into an electric organ; you can do everything with it.

I was only in one play at Steppenwolf, in the early days.

If god is watching us, the least we can do is be entertaining.

And finally, my all time fave:

I hear you. Everything sucks, and then you blog. The end.

What do you think? Is it possible that…not all spam is equal–nor completely evil?

Just kidding with the title.

I don’t have anything particularly insightful to say about the physics of the game.

Rather, this post is just to say, I’m off to watch the USA (and England).

I won’t be blogging this am at least until that is over and done with.

But I’m sure people have opinions about the team, so this is a place to leave them, and discuss the game….

No, I’m not just talking about the economy. The Pew Organization and Smithsonian teamed up to poll us about where we think technology will take us, and I’m struck by the results:

Large majorities expect that computers will be able to carry on conversations (81% say this definitely or probably will happen) and that there will be a cure for cancer (71%). About two-thirds (66%) say that artificial arms and legs will outperform real limbs while 53% envision ordinary people traveling in space.

At the same time, most say that war, terrorism and environmental catastrophes are at least probable by the year 2050. Nearly six-in-ten (58%) see another world war as definite or probable; 53% say the same about the prospect for a major terrorist attack on the United States involving nuclear weapons. An even higher percentage (72%) anticipates that the world will face a major energy crisis in the next 40 years.

The public is evenly divided over whether the quality of the earth’s environment will improve over the next 40 years; as many say the environment is not likely to improve (50%) as say it is (47%). There continues to be a widespread belief that the earth will get warmer in the future, though the percentage expressing this view has declined by 10 points, from 76% to 66%, since 1999.

Moreover, 60% say the world’s oceans will be less healthy 40 years from now than they are today; just 32% say the oceans will be more healthy.

What do you think of these findings? I can tell you the prediction I’m most confident in–that the world will be warmer.

I’m sure a lot of students are praying right now:

It’s possible we may get there today, or soon as the recovery continues. The stock market hasn’t been that high since before it fell off a cliff in October of 2008.

So, cast your votes, kids: Did Obama save the economy?

A 100 point gain for the Dow.

18 month highs for all three indices.

Maybe Democrats aren’t so bad for the economy after all?

Here at MIT, we’re doing a science journalism boot camp this week on food. And I’ve already picked up my first troublesome factoid: Hamburgers that look well done, observes J. Glenn Morris, Director of the Emerging Pathogens Institute at the University of Florida, aren’t necessarily safe.

In his lecture this morning, Morris observed that while cooking meat at a temperature of 160 degrees kills pathogens like the dangerous E. coli 0157:H7, 25 percent of hamburger patties will appear cooked at lower temperatures than that. Therefore, not only are rare or medium rare patties not necessarily safe to eat, but even a brown color shouldn’t inspire full confidence.

In truth, you need a food thermometer to be sure you’ve got a well cooked hamburger. And nobody whips those out before digging in at a fast food or pubby food restaurant.

I know I don’t, and I eat a lot of hamburgers. Or at least, I used to.

More technical details here.

It wasn’t for nothing that I asked these questions yesterday (and some of the responses were very helpful). Over at the Science Progress blog, I’ve now done a full piece about what happened in science in 2009, which includes observations like these:

It was a year of complete U-turns in science policy. President Barack Obama reversed George W. Bush’s dramatic restrictions on embryonic stem cell research, and the first 13 new stem cell lines were approved for federally funded research since 2001. Meanwhile, the Obama Environmental Protection Agency moved to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, finding that they do indeed endanger the public.

It was also the year of the first-ever passage, by a 219-212 margin in the U.S. House of Representatives, of a cap-and-trade bill that would cut domestic greenhouse gas emissions—but not the year for any parallel action in the U.S. Senate.

It was the year that everyone seemed to own an iPhone and use the word “app” in regular conversation. It was the year Twitter went from being a mere annoyance to the epitome of web-based communication.

It was a year that saw the very first Nobel laureate scientist assume a cabinet position, in the figure of U.S. Secretary of Energy Stephen Chu.

It was the year of….many, many, many other things, some funny, some outrageous, some profound. Read here for the whole list, and leave comments about anything you think may have been left out!

Arikia has just informed current and former sciblings via Twitter that last week’s ‘Boy Paradox‘ has a complement:

I continue to argue the logic is flawed.

Smart girls are hot. Further, attractiveness is directly related to the other two factors, as well as humor, confidence, and even a quirk here or there. Hence, ‘hot’ is dependent upon the alternative variables labeled plus those not accounted for in the figure.

Readers?

Now that I’m on Twitter, it’s easy to keep abreast of the ongoing discussions among my former sciblings. Here’s the latest topic considered [H/T Ed Yong of Not Exactly Rocket Science]:

I argue that clearly the logic is flawed.

Nerds are typically hottest of all!

Isis, Arikia, Sci, back me up here.

Readers?