Len Dawson, Randolph Scott

Joe Delaney tends to get a pass, too.

Astrophysics, just another topic on which BRC is the planet's foremost expert.

Gentlemen, I defy you, is there anything he can't do? What did we lowly chiefs fans do to deserve a modern incarnation of Einstein, Bohr, Plato, Aristotle, James Bond, Ron Jeremy and Steve McQueen all together walking among us?

Who? /CP

Ok, someone not affiliated with the Chiefs.

(And even then, it seems like the odds are against you)

I prefer Bourbon.

Loved him in Family Guy.

RIP

I didn't ask the initial question, and I don't want your dissertation. I just pointed out that you answered a question about why something was important with some shit that didn't say anything about its importance.

If you don't get that, then you should just move on to something simpler you might understand and enjoy, like a butt plug.

I'm interested in physics, but I also like the other topic.

Ah, see I was going to totally different route with it, and assuming Hawking had worked some non-linear time scale...so him saying a year might not be what we see as a year and in turn was taken out of context. Nevermind, I put too much into the original comment.

Are you really that stupid? Or you are just bringing your emotional jealousy into a RIP thread?

I'm always been into science and space. Been posting on this site and those threads for over a decade at least. I'm just trying to have a basic understanding of this complicated subject because my son is getting his doctorate in Astrophysics.

It was a cut and paste from the NASA website. They could explain it better than me. However, anyone who has taken a class in High school would know this basic information. So for you to assert this is some kind of bragger thing exposes you bringing your personal bias BS into a RIP thread.

I majored in boobs and beer in college.

Tyson has done more to promote learning of science, the pursuit of science than anyone else in the scientific community.

He is a "real" scientist but his "real" value is as a scientific communicator to the non-science person. Cosmos is coming back for a 2nd season. Science and astrophysics on national TV prime time. Without him, that never happens.

He is leaving a helluva legacy even if its not because of his personal scientific discoveries.

l was curious too. I googled and found this USA Today article. Spoiler alert, they don’t know but maybe something to do with being diagnosed at 21 instead of 40-70 like most people.

We have found that the survival in younger patients is strikingly better and is measured in many years — in some cases more than 10," said King's College clinical neurology professor Nigel Leigh in the article. "Among people in their 50s and 60s, there is a 50% chance of surviving four years or so. It is a different beast if you start young, oddly, and no one knows why."
Pam Shaw, a professor of neurology at England's University of Sheffield, told the journal she, too, wasn't sure why Hawking survived so long.

"The older you are the quicker the disease course tends to be, but we don't really have a handle on why some people survive for longer periods than others. I wish we did," she said.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...als/423313002/

RANDOLPH SCOTT!

/stands, places hat over heart