Source: NBC News
Showing posts with label annals of science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label annals of science. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 10, 2013
Monday, June 3, 2013
Erick Erickson wants everyone to know that he is definitely not mean
Indeed, he wants everyone to know that he's not mean at all, just a harsh truth-teller. As you may have seen, Erick Erickson recently came out and informed everyone that women were better stay-at-home parents than men, because of science, apparently.
Now, my first reaction, and probably yours as well, is that Erick Erickson must have grown up in a difficult area where the only source of food was an endless supply of baby seals that had to be clubbed to feed the family, and his mother just lacked the fortitude needed to perform such a vicious act.
So, uh, right. Anyway. Point is, Erick has become aware that people are upset by this, so he has considered his position and issued a sincere apolo--haha, nope, he's just decided to write an extensive article regarding 1) why he's right and 2) why he's not mean. Apparently, a guy who insinuates that women are unable to keep up in the workplace (and, conversely, that men are ill-suited for solo parenting) is really desperate for our approval. Let's see what he has to say!
The Truth May Hurt, But Is Not Mean
I feel the need to add to this post as it is obvious a lot of people take up this topic with some heavily preconceived notions and biases.
Hey, I agree! People are really biased about things like this, which sometimes leads to them making offensive statements. Really finding some great common ground here.
I am shocked to learn I think women cannot be breadwinners.
So was I! Now that you've noticed how silly that is, have you reconsidered anything?
That is what the left says, but it is not so.
That darn LEFT. Every time!
Even now I am getting beaten up for suggesting women should stay home with their kids. While I think it is preferable, I also know it is often impossible. I know from first hand experience.
I really find it incredible that someone can look at a veritable mob of people that disagree with them, see all of the various reasons why they might disagree and circumstances that might differ for every single person, and then say, "Whaaaaaat? I did it, so why can't you?" The term "first-hand experience" should appear in a piece like this roughly, oh, nowhere.
Prior to having kids, Christy and I both worked. Once we had our first child and I was making a full time go of RedState, Christy had to work if we were to have insurance. Frankly, we could not make ends meet on my salary alone and, even after the cost of day care, had to have the remainder of Christy’s salary to help make ends meet. We still struggled.
What an interesting personal story that has nothing at all to do with whether women being primary breadwinners is a problem. This is the equivalent of a child bursting into tears when he gets in trouble so that you'll feel sorry for him (luckily, I personally don't feel sympathy for children, so I have no problem with telling them or Erick that they can just fuck right off with the sob story).
At one point I had to contemplate being a single dad, but thank God I did not have to be.
See, Erick, this is where all the actual single dads stopped reading. "Thank God I was saved from being one of those! Single dadhood would have sucked, right?"
When we made the decision that Christy would stay home with the kids, we did so contemplating I would have to get one or more additional jobs in order for her to do it. God truly blessed us in how he arranged it, but we had made the decision to make the leap to her being a stay at home before those blessings even arrived.
You keep saying we and then telling us something that she did. And then you said that "God truly blessed us" as if it was something he did, as opposed to your wife agreeing to stay home with the kids because your sorry ass clearly didn't want to.
I work three jobs rather constantly, but am fortunate to do most of it from home.
Like I give a fuck. You're a commenter on Fox--I'm sure you'll be just fine.
All of this is to say there are many people who’ve heard what I said and think I’m judging them.
What? All of that was to say that you have it hard and God helped by making your wife stay home or some such bullshit.
I am not.
lol ok
In my own family we’ve been there and struggled. But just because the world has moved on and seems to think the two parent nuclear household with a stay at home mom is no longer necessary or useful does not make it so.
Evidence for your position: one anecdote you told that is maybe kind of related at best
Evidence against your position: pretty much all of the other things
Ladies, if you want to work that’s fine.
Ladies, make sure you thank Erick for so kindly granting you permission to work.
If your position in life makes it advantageous for you to be the primary bread winner, that’s fine. But your individual circumstances and mine should not hide the fact that there is an ideal and optimal family arrangement whether we in our own lives can meet it.
"It's totally OK to go with whatever arrangement you personally think works best for you! Just so you know, all the other ones other than mine are wrong, though. If you're OK with wrong, then that's totally fine!"
Having said all that, now on to the main point wherein all the controversy lies. . . .
Many feminist and emo lefties have their panties in a wad over my statements in the past 24 hours about families.
Gosh, I just can't imagine you saying something that would bother people. Also, I'm not sure you know what "emo" is.
I said, in a statement reflecting the view of three quarters of those surveyed in a Pew Research Center poll, that more women being the primary or sole breadwinners in families is harmful to raising children. This result came from a survey that found “nearly four in 10 families with children under the age of 18 are now headed by women who are the sole or primary breadwinners for their families.”
The facts you have presented here are that nearly four in ten families now rely on a woman as the primary breadwinner and that many people are concerned by this. None of that is evidence that your statement is accurate, it's just evidence that a lot of people agree with you. Also, the specific wording in the study was "Three-fourths of those surveyed say these mothers make raising children harder." I'm sure some of those people agree with your reasoning, but it's entirely possible that if you asked a stay-at-home dad if raising children was harder when his wife worked full-time, he'd be like, "Well, duh." Making sweeping conclusions based on a single question from a single survey won't always work out well for you.
I also noted that the left, which tells us all the time we’re just another animal in the animal kingdom,
The LEFT strikes again!
is rather anti-science when it comes to this. In many, many animal species, the male and female of the species play complementary roles, with the male dominant in strength and protection and the female dominant in nurture.
And in others, the male is the primary caregiver for the offspring. In others, the female is the stronger protector in the family. In yet others, a single female is dominant over thousands and thousands of subordinates. Nature is weird as hell and it's kinda bizarre to say, "Well, look at those animals! We should emulate them when it comes to deciding which member of the familyphysically fights to defend the family goes out to earn green pieces of paper that we trade for goods and services."
It’s the female who tames the male beast.*
*Except in lots of cases, such as:
One notable exception is the lion, where the male lion looks flashy but behaves mostly like a lazy beta-male MSNBC producer.
If you're trying to argue that animals all follow some universal family structure, you're going to find that about all of the species are exceptions. I did enjoy the amount of shade you're throwing at MSNBC there.
In modern society we are not supposed to say such things about child rearing and families. In modern society we are not supposed to point out that children in a two-parent heterosexual nuclear household have a better chance at long term success in life than others. In modern society, we are supposed to applaud feminists who teach women they can have it all — that there is no gender identifying role and women can fulfill the role of husbands and fathers just as men do.
Erick is strongly implying that he is really just a bold, outspoken rebel who is willing to stand against the tide of...people telling women they can be successful in ways of their choosing, I guess.
This does not mean the two-parent, heterosexual nuclear household will always work out for the best. But it does mean children in that environment will more often than not be more successful than children of single parents or gay parents.
When did gay parents enter this discussion? It seems like someone who's so insistent on there being a mother in the house would love the idea of having two mothers, though I suppose the other way around might be an issue for Erick. Anyway, if we follow his previous logic, we can always look to the animal kingdom for evidence as to whether there's a problem with gay parents, right?
Feminists and politicians on both sides of the aisle view these statements as insulting to single moms and antithetical to their support for gay marriage. What should be insulting to single moms is for society to tell them they can do it all and, in fact, will subsidize their doing it all.
"Single moms have a really difficult time, because we insult them by offering assistance."
I know a number of wonderful, nurturing single mothers. They do as best they can. Most of them have wonderful children. But not one of them prefers to be a single mother.
Life is terribly unfair. Sometimes a parent dies. Sometimes a parent is an abusive ass. There are unfortunate exceptions. But we should not kid ourselves or scream so loudly in politically correct outrage to drown the truth — kids most likely will do best in households where they have a mom at home nurturing them while dad is out bringing home the bacon.
Erick spends several paragraphs talking about how being a single mom is difficult, all of which is somehow evidence that in a two-parent home, mothers should stay in the home and fathers should work. Being a single parent certainly is tough, but that has little bearing on Erick's point about which parents should stay home.
As a society, once we moved past that basic recognition, we’ve been on a downward trajectory of more and more broken homes and maladjusted youth. Pro-science liberals seem to think basic nature and biology do not apply to Homo sapiens.
Men can behave like women, women can behave like men, they can raise their kids, if they have them, in any way they see fit, and everything will turn out fine
Sounds great!
in the liberal fantasy world.
Erick's problem is that his version of "liberal fantasy world" sounds awesome. Well, that and all the other problems. Still, I have to say, he's really convinced me of some things--admittedly, they're all probably the opposite of what he was hoping to convince his readers of, but still!
Now, my first reaction, and probably yours as well, is that Erick Erickson must have grown up in a difficult area where the only source of food was an endless supply of baby seals that had to be clubbed to feed the family, and his mother just lacked the fortitude needed to perform such a vicious act.
So, uh, right. Anyway. Point is, Erick has become aware that people are upset by this, so he has considered his position and issued a sincere apolo--haha, nope, he's just decided to write an extensive article regarding 1) why he's right and 2) why he's not mean. Apparently, a guy who insinuates that women are unable to keep up in the workplace (and, conversely, that men are ill-suited for solo parenting) is really desperate for our approval. Let's see what he has to say!
The Truth May Hurt, But Is Not Mean
I feel the need to add to this post as it is obvious a lot of people take up this topic with some heavily preconceived notions and biases.
Hey, I agree! People are really biased about things like this, which sometimes leads to them making offensive statements. Really finding some great common ground here.
I am shocked to learn I think women cannot be breadwinners.
So was I! Now that you've noticed how silly that is, have you reconsidered anything?
That is what the left says, but it is not so.
That darn LEFT. Every time!
Even now I am getting beaten up for suggesting women should stay home with their kids. While I think it is preferable, I also know it is often impossible. I know from first hand experience.
I really find it incredible that someone can look at a veritable mob of people that disagree with them, see all of the various reasons why they might disagree and circumstances that might differ for every single person, and then say, "Whaaaaaat? I did it, so why can't you?" The term "first-hand experience" should appear in a piece like this roughly, oh, nowhere.
Prior to having kids, Christy and I both worked. Once we had our first child and I was making a full time go of RedState, Christy had to work if we were to have insurance. Frankly, we could not make ends meet on my salary alone and, even after the cost of day care, had to have the remainder of Christy’s salary to help make ends meet. We still struggled.
What an interesting personal story that has nothing at all to do with whether women being primary breadwinners is a problem. This is the equivalent of a child bursting into tears when he gets in trouble so that you'll feel sorry for him (luckily, I personally don't feel sympathy for children, so I have no problem with telling them or Erick that they can just fuck right off with the sob story).
At one point I had to contemplate being a single dad, but thank God I did not have to be.
See, Erick, this is where all the actual single dads stopped reading. "Thank God I was saved from being one of those! Single dadhood would have sucked, right?"
When we made the decision that Christy would stay home with the kids, we did so contemplating I would have to get one or more additional jobs in order for her to do it. God truly blessed us in how he arranged it, but we had made the decision to make the leap to her being a stay at home before those blessings even arrived.
You keep saying we and then telling us something that she did. And then you said that "God truly blessed us" as if it was something he did, as opposed to your wife agreeing to stay home with the kids because your sorry ass clearly didn't want to.
I work three jobs rather constantly, but am fortunate to do most of it from home.
Like I give a fuck. You're a commenter on Fox--I'm sure you'll be just fine.
All of this is to say there are many people who’ve heard what I said and think I’m judging them.
What? All of that was to say that you have it hard and God helped by making your wife stay home or some such bullshit.
I am not.
lol ok
In my own family we’ve been there and struggled. But just because the world has moved on and seems to think the two parent nuclear household with a stay at home mom is no longer necessary or useful does not make it so.
Evidence for your position: one anecdote you told that is maybe kind of related at best
Evidence against your position: pretty much all of the other things
Ladies, if you want to work that’s fine.
Ladies, make sure you thank Erick for so kindly granting you permission to work.
If your position in life makes it advantageous for you to be the primary bread winner, that’s fine. But your individual circumstances and mine should not hide the fact that there is an ideal and optimal family arrangement whether we in our own lives can meet it.
"It's totally OK to go with whatever arrangement you personally think works best for you! Just so you know, all the other ones other than mine are wrong, though. If you're OK with wrong, then that's totally fine!"
Having said all that, now on to the main point wherein all the controversy lies. . . .
Many feminist and emo lefties have their panties in a wad over my statements in the past 24 hours about families.
Gosh, I just can't imagine you saying something that would bother people. Also, I'm not sure you know what "emo" is.
I said, in a statement reflecting the view of three quarters of those surveyed in a Pew Research Center poll, that more women being the primary or sole breadwinners in families is harmful to raising children. This result came from a survey that found “nearly four in 10 families with children under the age of 18 are now headed by women who are the sole or primary breadwinners for their families.”
The facts you have presented here are that nearly four in ten families now rely on a woman as the primary breadwinner and that many people are concerned by this. None of that is evidence that your statement is accurate, it's just evidence that a lot of people agree with you. Also, the specific wording in the study was "Three-fourths of those surveyed say these mothers make raising children harder." I'm sure some of those people agree with your reasoning, but it's entirely possible that if you asked a stay-at-home dad if raising children was harder when his wife worked full-time, he'd be like, "Well, duh." Making sweeping conclusions based on a single question from a single survey won't always work out well for you.
I also noted that the left, which tells us all the time we’re just another animal in the animal kingdom,
The LEFT strikes again!
is rather anti-science when it comes to this. In many, many animal species, the male and female of the species play complementary roles, with the male dominant in strength and protection and the female dominant in nurture.
And in others, the male is the primary caregiver for the offspring. In others, the female is the stronger protector in the family. In yet others, a single female is dominant over thousands and thousands of subordinates. Nature is weird as hell and it's kinda bizarre to say, "Well, look at those animals! We should emulate them when it comes to deciding which member of the family
It’s the female who tames the male beast.*
*Except in lots of cases, such as:
One notable exception is the lion, where the male lion looks flashy but behaves mostly like a lazy beta-male MSNBC producer.
If you're trying to argue that animals all follow some universal family structure, you're going to find that about all of the species are exceptions. I did enjoy the amount of shade you're throwing at MSNBC there.
In modern society we are not supposed to say such things about child rearing and families. In modern society we are not supposed to point out that children in a two-parent heterosexual nuclear household have a better chance at long term success in life than others. In modern society, we are supposed to applaud feminists who teach women they can have it all — that there is no gender identifying role and women can fulfill the role of husbands and fathers just as men do.
Erick is strongly implying that he is really just a bold, outspoken rebel who is willing to stand against the tide of...people telling women they can be successful in ways of their choosing, I guess.
This does not mean the two-parent, heterosexual nuclear household will always work out for the best. But it does mean children in that environment will more often than not be more successful than children of single parents or gay parents.
When did gay parents enter this discussion? It seems like someone who's so insistent on there being a mother in the house would love the idea of having two mothers, though I suppose the other way around might be an issue for Erick. Anyway, if we follow his previous logic, we can always look to the animal kingdom for evidence as to whether there's a problem with gay parents, right?
Feminists and politicians on both sides of the aisle view these statements as insulting to single moms and antithetical to their support for gay marriage. What should be insulting to single moms is for society to tell them they can do it all and, in fact, will subsidize their doing it all.
"Single moms have a really difficult time, because we insult them by offering assistance."
I know a number of wonderful, nurturing single mothers. They do as best they can. Most of them have wonderful children. But not one of them prefers to be a single mother.
Life is terribly unfair. Sometimes a parent dies. Sometimes a parent is an abusive ass. There are unfortunate exceptions. But we should not kid ourselves or scream so loudly in politically correct outrage to drown the truth — kids most likely will do best in households where they have a mom at home nurturing them while dad is out bringing home the bacon.
Erick spends several paragraphs talking about how being a single mom is difficult, all of which is somehow evidence that in a two-parent home, mothers should stay in the home and fathers should work. Being a single parent certainly is tough, but that has little bearing on Erick's point about which parents should stay home.
As a society, once we moved past that basic recognition, we’ve been on a downward trajectory of more and more broken homes and maladjusted youth. Pro-science liberals seem to think basic nature and biology do not apply to Homo sapiens.
Men can behave like women, women can behave like men, they can raise their kids, if they have them, in any way they see fit, and everything will turn out fine
Sounds great!
in the liberal fantasy world.
Erick's problem is that his version of "liberal fantasy world" sounds awesome. Well, that and all the other problems. Still, I have to say, he's really convinced me of some things--admittedly, they're all probably the opposite of what he was hoping to convince his readers of, but still!
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Friday, May 17, 2013
I guess it's natural to wonder if you're adopted but come on
Slate.com has a frequent advice column written by Emily Yoffe. This column frequently runs somewhat absurd questions, but today's really takes the cake:
Thursday, May 2, 2013
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
One, two, three, Science!
Continuing to boldly explore the far reaches of human understanding, scientists today have discovered that...tasting beer makes you want more beer. Maybe. Ta fucking da, y'all!
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Science tackles the pressing issues of our time, this time regarding whether you should fart on planes
Their conclusion: it's better for pilots to fart than not fart. For safety! Seriously, this is a thing people are studying, right now. They probably earn more than you do!
A team of Danish and British gastroenterologists produced a paper on flatulence on planes after one of them, Jacob Rosenberg, was inspired on a flight between Copenhagen and Tokyo.
The problem is that farting is an invariable consequence of digestion and people do it about 10 times a day.
Was there a need for that Wikipedia link? Pretty sure people have figured out what that word means.
Hans Christian Pommergaard, Jakob Burcharth, Anders Fischer, William Thomas and Professor Rosenberg have told the New Zealand Medical Journal the holding back option may seem "alluring'' but there are drawbacks.
"Alluring" is not the word I'd have picked. Maybe "painful" or "excruciating"?
Stress, discomfort, pain, bloating, dyspepsia and other symptoms could ensue, while not discounting the chance that all the effort may be sabotaged by turbulence in any case.
CAPTAIN: Please be advised that we are encountering some turbulence.
EVERYONE ON PLANE: <releases pent-up farts>
"There is actually only one reasonable solution ... just let it go,'' the medicos say.
They warn of consequences in the cockpit.
"If the pilot restrains a fart, all the drawbacks previously mentioned, including diminished concentration, may affect his abilities to control the airplane,'' the researchers say.
"If he lets go of the fart his co-pilot may be affected by its odour, which again reduces safety on board the flight.''
Yes, smelling a fart is in fact a serious safety concern on planes now. Can't wait til the TSA gets involved.
The specialists did not recommend setting farts alight, either on land or in a plane, despite its proven ability to reduce odour.
Were people previously trying to do this on planes? Everyone knows the best method is to shift blame to others by peering around in an obvious manner after you fart, to make it seem like you're trying to find the real culprit. Also acceptable: asking if someone just stepped on a duck.
They reluctantly dismissed the notion of rubber pants with an attached air container for collecting gas as "somewhat extreme''.
I'd hate to see the options that were deemed "way too extreme", given that the "somewhat extreme" option already sounds like some sort of bizarre BDSM equipment.
But they reckon putting active charcoal in passenger seats is a winner of an idea that could be backed up with special undies.
Pre-flight passenger methane breath tests and reducing fibre in airline food options were also considered.
A team of Danish and British gastroenterologists produced a paper on flatulence on planes after one of them, Jacob Rosenberg, was inspired on a flight between Copenhagen and Tokyo.
The problem is that farting is an invariable consequence of digestion and people do it about 10 times a day.
Was there a need for that Wikipedia link? Pretty sure people have figured out what that word means.
Hans Christian Pommergaard, Jakob Burcharth, Anders Fischer, William Thomas and Professor Rosenberg have told the New Zealand Medical Journal the holding back option may seem "alluring'' but there are drawbacks.
"Alluring" is not the word I'd have picked. Maybe "painful" or "excruciating"?
Stress, discomfort, pain, bloating, dyspepsia and other symptoms could ensue, while not discounting the chance that all the effort may be sabotaged by turbulence in any case.
CAPTAIN: Please be advised that we are encountering some turbulence.
EVERYONE ON PLANE: <releases pent-up farts>
"There is actually only one reasonable solution ... just let it go,'' the medicos say.
They warn of consequences in the cockpit.
"If the pilot restrains a fart, all the drawbacks previously mentioned, including diminished concentration, may affect his abilities to control the airplane,'' the researchers say.
"If he lets go of the fart his co-pilot may be affected by its odour, which again reduces safety on board the flight.''
Yes, smelling a fart is in fact a serious safety concern on planes now. Can't wait til the TSA gets involved.
The specialists did not recommend setting farts alight, either on land or in a plane, despite its proven ability to reduce odour.
Were people previously trying to do this on planes? Everyone knows the best method is to shift blame to others by peering around in an obvious manner after you fart, to make it seem like you're trying to find the real culprit. Also acceptable: asking if someone just stepped on a duck.
They reluctantly dismissed the notion of rubber pants with an attached air container for collecting gas as "somewhat extreme''.
I'd hate to see the options that were deemed "way too extreme", given that the "somewhat extreme" option already sounds like some sort of bizarre BDSM equipment.
But they reckon putting active charcoal in passenger seats is a winner of an idea that could be backed up with special undies.
Pre-flight passenger methane breath tests and reducing fibre in airline food options were also considered.
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
Ukrainian military dolphins have left their posts for sex reasons
Per RiaNovosti:
SEVASTOPOL, March 12 (RIA Novosti) - Three of the Ukrainian navy's
“killer” dolphins that swam away from their handlers during training
exercises probably left to look for mates, an expert said on Tuesday.
Great, there's nothing that can go wrong when sex-crazed dolphins with military training are on the loose. On the plus side, maybe they don't exist:
Ukraine’s Defense Ministry denied the reports, while refusing to confirm the navy makes use of dolphins, despite the frequent appearance in Ukrainian media of photographs of dolphins with military equipment strapped to them.
I don't mean to say that those photos are definitive proof, but...
A military source in Sevastopol told RIA Novosti last year that the Ukrainian navy had restarted training dolphins to attack enemy combat swimmers and detect mines. The killer-dolphins would be trained to attack enemy combat swimmers using special knives or pistols fixed to their heads, the source said.
Great, thanks.
Great, there's nothing that can go wrong when sex-crazed dolphins with military training are on the loose. On the plus side, maybe they don't exist:
Ukraine’s Defense Ministry denied the reports, while refusing to confirm the navy makes use of dolphins, despite the frequent appearance in Ukrainian media of photographs of dolphins with military equipment strapped to them.
I don't mean to say that those photos are definitive proof, but...
Photo credit: Gizmodo
they're kind of definitive proof. Any final words that might further terrify people who are envisioning a wild team of horny warrior-dolphins cruising around the Black Sea?A military source in Sevastopol told RIA Novosti last year that the Ukrainian navy had restarted training dolphins to attack enemy combat swimmers and detect mines. The killer-dolphins would be trained to attack enemy combat swimmers using special knives or pistols fixed to their heads, the source said.
Great, thanks.
Photo credit: Heavy
Friday, February 22, 2013
Let's just hope they stick to ping-pong
I was unaware we had made such progress on making intelligent flying robots, but these quadrocopters are pretty awesome. My personal favorite part is that when they make a mistake, they shake with what I can only assume is disappointment in their own robot inadequacy.
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
It's time for science with Jose Canseco
Yesterday, Jose Canseco tweeted the following:
This of course led to great excitement among those of us who wonder what the concept of Science looks like in Jose Canseco's head (just me? yeah, probably just me). Luckily for us, he did in fact follow through on his promise, and it is fantastic. Observe:
This is actually something that scientists do debate, since the total mass of the Earth does change a bit over time, thus affecting its gravitational force. Jose, however, has other reasons for believing this:
Probably something to do with evolution? You're the expert, Jose, you tell me.
After sharing this intriguing theory about gravity, Jose went on to discuss the planetary physics that caused this gravitational change:
Basically, the Triassic was the Earth's steroid era.
It's thought-provoking, that's for sure. This concludes today's edition of Thoughts about Gravity, featuring Jose Canseco.
Friday, February 1, 2013
So there's just the one problem, then?
 |
| Best quote:
Donovan agrees with McVie's theory. "Probably what it [the high
rates of penile implants in prison] shows more than anything is how
incredibly boring
prison is. You've got to do something that fills in the day."
Source: The Atlantic
|
I don't really get some of the things people use math for
 |
| Translation: we didn't have anything to write about, so we watched YouTube videos until we found a cool one. |
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Today in science, we use misinterpretation to confirm high school gender stereotypes
A recent scientific study found that girls who discuss their personal problems with others might actually suffer from dwelling on those problems too much, which seems somewhat logical and worthy of further study (especially since boys did not show similar issues in the study). Of course, various media outlets have been reporting on this story in an open-minded and completely honest fashion:
On the other hand:
 |
| Somehow we went from "dwelling on personal problems is not ideal" to "girls at risk of talking too much". |
On the other hand:
 |
| If it doesn't seem useful to teenage boys, it's safe to assume that it isn't useful to any males ever. Yep, that checks out. |
Friday, January 18, 2013
One! Ten! 1 10 11 100!
On the minus side, you'd think robots that can play rock music are probably not that different than the robots that will inevitably seize military control of the world. On the plus side, if they keep going in this direction, they'll all develop drug problems and become burnouts before they make anything of themselves.
Friday, January 11, 2013
Friday, December 7, 2012
Today in science, we explore unfeasible beer-related solutions for pneumonia
A Japanese brewery has said that a scientific study yielded some interesting results: namely, that beer can be used to prevent or alleviate illnesses caused by the RS virus, which include pneumonia, bronchitis, and other breathing difficulties. Sounds great!
Tokyo: Consuming large quantities of a key ingredient in beer can protect against winter sniffles and even some serious illnesses
Super cool, you guys. It might be tough to consume large quantities of beer while sick, but we can power through.
in small children, a Japanese brewery said citing a scientific study.
Oh. It works only on small children. I think I'd like to hear more about study, specifically: how was this study legal at all? It sounds like you just got small children drunk when they already had pneumonia, and the officers who spoke to me last time were very clear that I was not allowed to do that.
In research with scientists at Sapporo Medical University, the compound -- humulone -- was found to be effective in curbing the respiratory syncytial (RS) virus, said the company, which funded the study.
"The RS virus can cause serious pneumonia and breathing difficulties for infants and toddlers, but no vaccination is available at the moment to contain it," said Jun Fuchimoto, a researcher from the company.
The virus tends to spread in winter and can also cause cold-like symptoms in adults.
Fuchimoto said such small quantities of humulone were present in beer that someone would have to drink around 30 cans, each of 350 millilitres (12 oz), for it to have any virus-fighting effect.
Did little Billy catch pneumonia again? Just grab a 30-rack of PBR and get cracking.
"We are now studying the feasibility of applying humulone to food
or non-alcoholic products," he said. "The challenge really is that the
bitter taste is going to be difficult for children."
Just get them some of that Bud Light Lime--tastes like Sprite. Billy's gonna love it. Anyway, it's cool that they have ideas about ways to give this to kids in ways that don't involve getting them tanked. Until they figure that out, though, will doctors face an ethical dilemma with younger pneumonia patients? "Sir, your son is sick--he can get better today, but he and I are going to have to spend about four hours in my office with a case of Colt .45s and my Lynyrd Skynyrd CDs. There's no time to waste."
Tokyo: Consuming large quantities of a key ingredient in beer can protect against winter sniffles and even some serious illnesses
Super cool, you guys. It might be tough to consume large quantities of beer while sick, but we can power through.
in small children, a Japanese brewery said citing a scientific study.
Oh. It works only on small children. I think I'd like to hear more about study, specifically: how was this study legal at all? It sounds like you just got small children drunk when they already had pneumonia, and the officers who spoke to me last time were very clear that I was not allowed to do that.
 |
| Don't worry--they're using light beer. |
In research with scientists at Sapporo Medical University, the compound -- humulone -- was found to be effective in curbing the respiratory syncytial (RS) virus, said the company, which funded the study.
"The RS virus can cause serious pneumonia and breathing difficulties for infants and toddlers, but no vaccination is available at the moment to contain it," said Jun Fuchimoto, a researcher from the company.
The virus tends to spread in winter and can also cause cold-like symptoms in adults.
Fuchimoto said such small quantities of humulone were present in beer that someone would have to drink around 30 cans, each of 350 millilitres (12 oz), for it to have any virus-fighting effect.
Did little Billy catch pneumonia again? Just grab a 30-rack of PBR and get cracking.
 |
| Pictured: modern medicine at work. |
Just get them some of that Bud Light Lime--tastes like Sprite. Billy's gonna love it. Anyway, it's cool that they have ideas about ways to give this to kids in ways that don't involve getting them tanked. Until they figure that out, though, will doctors face an ethical dilemma with younger pneumonia patients? "Sir, your son is sick--he can get better today, but he and I are going to have to spend about four hours in my office with a case of Colt .45s and my Lynyrd Skynyrd CDs. There's no time to waste."
Thursday, December 6, 2012
Today in science, New Zealand has some crazy ideas about dogs and cars
I am unclear on why this is necessary, or why they decided stick shift was the way to go, but it is pretty clear that this is awesome.
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Today in science: how to dance better, if you are a computer avatar
Scientists in England have studied dance moves, attempting to determine "the dance
moves that will capture a woman's heart". As a person who is terrible at dancing, this should be of great value to me personally. So, what's the key?
Apparently the speed of a man's right knee and the size and variety of movements of the neck and torso are key
Sucks for all you left-kneed assholes.
Throughout the animal kingdom examples abound of males performing courtship dances, attracting females with displays of health and skill. Dances are sexy among humans as well
Health and skill? So I should probably stop doing the Bernie all the time, then.
The men in the study wore 38 small reflectors all over their body, which the systems monitored to capture the motions of the dancers in three dimensions — the same technique filmmakers used to help create the character of Gollum in the "Lord of the Rings" movies. These movements were mapped onto featureless, white, gender-neutral humanoid characters, or avatars.
He added: "We
now know which area of the body females are looking at when they are making a
judgment about male dance attractiveness.
Heyoooooooo! Oh, wait, they're talking about the right knee.
faster bending and twisting movements of the right knee also seemed to catch the eyes of women
Got it, sorry. Won't happen again.
"The hardest thing is to recruit males to take part," Neave told LiveScience. "They seem rather reluctant to sign up for studies that involve dancing."
Males who were not typically dancers were hesitant to have electrodes taped to them while they dance in front of scientists so they could be turned into featureless, mannequin-like avatars which would be judged on their ability to attract women? Shocker. Anyway, here's the videos of the "good" and "bad" dancing avatars.
Good:
So...jog in place + wax on, wax off? Got it.
Apparently the speed of a man's right knee and the size and variety of movements of the neck and torso are key
Sucks for all you left-kneed assholes.
Throughout the animal kingdom examples abound of males performing courtship dances, attracting females with displays of health and skill. Dances are sexy among humans as well
Health and skill? So I should probably stop doing the Bernie all the time, then.
The men in the study wore 38 small reflectors all over their body, which the systems monitored to capture the motions of the dancers in three dimensions — the same technique filmmakers used to help create the character of Gollum in the "Lord of the Rings" movies. These movements were mapped onto featureless, white, gender-neutral humanoid characters, or avatars.
 |
| Chicks dig gender-neutral humanoid avatars |
Heyoooooooo! Oh, wait, they're talking about the right knee.
faster bending and twisting movements of the right knee also seemed to catch the eyes of women
Got it, sorry. Won't happen again.
"The hardest thing is to recruit males to take part," Neave told LiveScience. "They seem rather reluctant to sign up for studies that involve dancing."
Males who were not typically dancers were hesitant to have electrodes taped to them while they dance in front of scientists so they could be turned into featureless, mannequin-like avatars which would be judged on their ability to attract women? Shocker. Anyway, here's the videos of the "good" and "bad" dancing avatars.
Good:
So...jog in place + wax on, wax off? Got it.
Bad:
Go home avatar, you are drunk
Science!
Monday, November 12, 2012
Today in science: drinking before you drink means you drink more
Swiss scientists, having finished their work with hadron colliders and such, are now working on figuring out what happens when you pre-game. Their findings:
Young adults who engage in pre-drinking, also called pre-gaming, are more likely to drink heavily over the course of an evening than those who don't pre-drink.
I do have to give them credit for coming up with the term pre-drinking, because it sounds more responsible than pre-gaming, so I'm going to steal that.
Pre-drinking involves drinking alcohol at home or in a public place, such as a park
Thank you for the helpful example of a public place. To further elucidate that point, here is a picture of a park, which is a public place where rebellious youths often engage in the pre-drinking of alcohol.
The study also found that those who pre-drank were more likely to suffer risky or unfavorable consequences of drinking, such as blackouts, hangovers, unplanned substance abuse
That sounds planned to me, yes?
Pre-gaming doesn't reduce how much alcohol people drink
Hard-hitting science journalism at its best.
Young adults who engage in pre-drinking, also called pre-gaming, are more likely to drink heavily over the course of an evening than those who don't pre-drink.
I do have to give them credit for coming up with the term pre-drinking, because it sounds more responsible than pre-gaming, so I'm going to steal that.
Pre-drinking involves drinking alcohol at home or in a public place, such as a park
Thank you for the helpful example of a public place. To further elucidate that point, here is a picture of a park, which is a public place where rebellious youths often engage in the pre-drinking of alcohol.
The study also found that those who pre-drank were more likely to suffer risky or unfavorable consequences of drinking, such as blackouts, hangovers, unplanned substance abuse
That sounds planned to me, yes?
Pre-gaming doesn't reduce how much alcohol people drink
Hard-hitting science journalism at its best.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)