Do you like that title? I can't help it, I hear that song from Robin Hood every time I see the word 'oekologie' so hum along with me and enjoy episode #16.

First, I can't take credit for finding most of the terrific stuff contained in here. We're big fans of community events like this so we bothered everyone we could to help find good stuff rather than stay passive and just use submissions that got sent in. As a result, we got some terrific work that was done over the last month. Let's get right to it.

Justin at Sustainablog advocates a velvet glove approach rather than the iron fist approach sometimes taken by enviromentalists in Myths of Environmentalism. He says it's a better idea to remind people that the beautiful nature experiences they enjoyed as kids should be around when they have grandkids too. No argument about that, though we're generally inclined to make fun of Proust here, but that's only because we have fewer Ph.D.'s in English than those guys.

There is a good reason most Americans stink at chess - our unfailing optimism. No matter how bad things get with the economy or the environment or (insert your pet cause here) Americans will always believe that, because we have Christina Aguilera, we beat the pants off of everyone else. Russians, for example, don't think that way. Half of Moscow is populated by women hotter than Christina Aguilera and they're all on a Russian dating site hoping to meet an American mechanic who will get them a green card and raise their kid.

Scientists, American or otherwise, are not afflicted by that kind of sunny disposition. People have a perception that science is a happy wonderland where you come up with an idea and everyone rallies around you and supports you while you try to prove it. Nothing can be further from the truth. Science is done by falsification.

I was puttering around the attic of the Cashominium, trying to sort through some old boxes, and I came across something you all might find interesting. Before any of this makes sense, I need to give you a little family background.

Like many, the Cash family has been here a long time (a long time for America, anyway - here a hundred years is a long time and in Europe a hundred miles is a long distance, so it's all perspective) but we are not blueblooded fancy-pants Mayflower descendants or anything like that. We arrived just over 160 years ago.

The mid-1800s were a popular time to leave Europe, what with land and opportunity here and there being the place where guys like Napoleon were still fashionable and 'reform' meant killing a lot of people, but we weren't the working poor that left because of lousy potato crops or anything so dire.

More predictably, legend has it that old Jebediah left Britain under some questionable circumstances - namely a scandal involving a woman.

It's political primary season and you know what that means, right? Right, it's time to rent movies and think about something else.

But you wouldn't be here if you could watch just any movies, you'd be a Huffington Post reader or Glenn Beck listener or whatever it is those people do that gets so much more attention than actual quality writing, like this site. You have more sense than that so you like movies with scientists; and especially scientists who could be hottie supermodels, mostly because they don't know anything about science.

In compiling a list like this, I am torn and maybe you will be also. Great science movies and attractive women don't always go together. Number of hot women in Pi for example? Well, okay, Lauren Fox, but she wasn't a scientist.

When President George Bush announced in 2004 that he wanted to reinvigorate space exploration, he presented a number of arguments for increasing funding but they were all rather tepid. Space exploration technology, for example, led to CAT scans and MRIs. Oh, and we got better weather forecasting.

Honestly, those are pretty weak arguments to justify an organization that gets almost $15 billion per year. Why not mention Tang and a pen that writes upside down? At least Tang is something most of us have had. I have never had an MRI.

Since then we have had some interesting projects take off; the Dawn misson to Ceres, for example, but nothing that really captured the attention of the common man. The space shuttle is, let's face it, boring.

Sometimes people think that, because I write this column for peanuts, I am somehow available for free science consulting services. Obviously this is not the case but I don't mind the occasional question, especially if it concerns real puzzles like how a car in China doesn't cause global warming but a car in America does.

Lately I have been pestered with questions about this whole Christmas thing. It's a troublesome issue, I agree, but I am not in the free science business so most of the questions I just ignore - however, one of the many,many,many (not that many - Lady Scientist ) groupies that flitter about me on the internet caught my attention recently with their query about Yule physics because they had the creativity to put it in seasonal rhyming form;

How close are we to real-world bionic parts like they show on TV? We spent Part I discussing Bionic Women on TV and speculating as to why they spent $55 Million on Jaime Sommers in the show but couldn't fix actress Michelle Ryan's chin.

Now we're going to get into actual science, like how we would build a Bionic Woman today if we didn't give a crap about television ratings. It's a good thing I am writing this now because television ratings are important and this show could be cancelled any day, making it a lot less culturally relevant. How will I get you to buy a book on science if it doesn't have pop culture relevance and cute girls?

So in our analysis of the Bionic Woman we have to start with the eyes because it's the first real piece of marketing they did and it was quite good.

We all know that if there's one thing certain to happen to professional tennis players who get hurt in skydiving accidents, it's that a clandestine para-military organization will swoop in and replace the now defective natural parts with über-awesome cybernetic ones. Thus began the saga of Jamie Sommers in a 1975 episode of The Six Million Dollar Man

The episode garnered the actress her own series which ran for three seasons before losing its charge but the concept was so riveting that it could work at almost any time so I was always surprised that, TV movie specials aside, it never got re-made.

Esquire magazine scribe Tom Junod recently wrote something that made me question my judgment and his sanity - namely that Franziska Michor Is the Isaac Newton of Biology

Now, the last time someone compared themselves to Isaac Newton it was ... well, okay it was me, but even I can't be serious about comparing myself to Isaac Newton. Isaac Newton is a serious guy in physics. A giant. Maybe the giant. It's one thing to make comparisons for dramatic effect, which a keen writer like Junod can do better than anyone, but another to make a serious case.

Isaac Newton is the metric for comparison because he is so fundamental. Isaac Newton to physicists is like a Prius is to environmental activists. He's that important. So it would be easy to dismiss Junod out of hand because, let's face it, he knows jack about science. But that's not what science is about so, instead, we will do what scientists always do when faced with a hypothesis.

Make a bunch of tables.

As you can see by the table below we have compiled a list of important criteria for our evaluation. That will help us decide who is really better, Michor or Newton.

I'm usually a pretty patient guy about marketing. Unlike some, I am not educated by it and, unlike others, I don't look down on it. I know why it it exists and I appreciate its value but at some point in advocacy issues ( in this case the environment ) it invariably crosses a line from being funny to offensive and then it goes completely over the line into being the kind of junk science that needs to be ridiculed.

My latest gripe is the claim that low energy bulbs are a magic panacea for the environment and that they are wonderful in all respects. I don't use them and there are a few compelling reasons why you should focus on other ways to save the environment also.

The main reason I don't use them is because I am not smug enough.

You know what I am talking about. Who actually laughed at those Apple television ads where the smug, hipster guy is the Apple user and the buffoon uses a PC? It takes some true marketing incompetence to make Microsoft seem lovable but they did it. The only people who liked those ads were Apple users, who are already smug.

Groundbreaking - and heartwarmingly unessential - research done by University of Central Florida physics professor Costas Efthimiou has attempted to confirm what a generation of suicide girls has always feared - that vampires do not exist.

His reasoning? On Jan 1, 1600, the human population was just over 530 million people. If one vampire existed on that day and bit one person per month, and then each new vampire also bit one person per month, by 1605 the entire planet would be nothing except vampires.

Now, I am okay with there being no vampires, though I think the world would be poorer without that cinema classic, Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter.

And, without vampires, I would not be able to spend 4 seconds scouring the internet and find pictures like this:

I saw a few articles discussing an upcoming convergence between robot and human culture based on research by Netherlands student David Levy, who completed his PhD on the subject of human-robot relationships. Using the Artificial Intelligence ( A.I. if you are new to, well, everything ) curve laid out by Levy, humans and robots would be inter-marrying by 2050. Inter-marrying means sex and, of course, I am a specialist in the science of sex.

Before we get to the marrying stage, a few issues would have to be addressed. You think Japanese girls have a tough time explaining an American man to their parents? Wait until she brings home a robot. That's right, sex is easy but relationships, even with women of other cultures, are more like Voodoo than science so robot relationship management must be a higher order of Voodoo, right?

Maybe. Maybe not. Psychologists state there are about a dozen reasons people fall in love - and there is no reason those same reasons couldn't apply to robots. in some cases, like actual marriage, it will open up a legal can of worms but someone will be willing to give it a try - most likely in Massachusetts, according to Levy.

Who knew that the sex lives of African bat bugs could be so interesting? Males with female genitalia, female bugs with 'paragenitals' on their abdomens that guide the males to the right spot by basically impaling them if they mess up, males trying to impregnate males.

It's Extreme Transexualism, coming soon to a species near you.

Why is it necessary in these bugs? Males tend to get overanxious and just start stabbing away anywhere in the abdomen but they really need to go into a special warm place that some men on the internet know nothing about - though it's still in their abdomen, in the case of female bat bugs. Yes, male bat bugs use blood insemination and then the sperm have to swim to the ovaries.

It's gruesome and bizarre and therefore completely worthy of a science article that transcends zoology and gets right to the sexual politics.

Yes, your favorite color is blue. Most of you, anyway. Except some women, who go for the redder part of the red-green axis.

A lot of science sites got a press release from Current Biology and went with the "women do prefer pink" headline without even reading the abstract much less the actual article, which is why you're smart enough to read about it here instead. In fact, if you read a story today that had "Girls prefer pink ..." somewhere in it, you can guess some journalist phoned that one in. Or they just copied the press release verbatim.⁽¹⁾

The idea behind this latest study was to find out if there was a sex-based difference between the color preferences of men and women. And there was. Sort of. It may even be an evolutionary trait, the researchers say.

"Evolution may have driven females to prefer reddish colors--reddish fruits, healthy, reddish faces," said Anya Hurlbert of the Institute of Neuroscience and School of Biology and Psychology, Newcastle University. "Culture may exploit and compound this natural female preference."

What does that mean? Well, nothing. 'May' in science sounds better than just admitting you are guessing. That's been the issue with these kinds of color studies all along. “Bewildering, confused and contradictory” is how she and co-author Yazhu Ling described prior studies.

"It's hard finding the perfect woman," my friend Jack said to me.

"What do you mean?" I asked. "Do you want to borrow my copy of Poison Ivy: The New Seduction?"

"No, no, we all know why you never answer the phone when My Name Is Earl is on TV. You went three hours early to get tickets for DOA the day it opened and ended up being the only person in the whole theater. I mean finding the perfect woman for me is difficult. I am always excited when things get going but then I find some annoying flaw."