![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I get press releases.
Sometimes they are about pseudoscientific polls.
The “collateral damage” involves relationships with friends, family members and/or co-workers – three out of five respondents to the poll say they’ve had such relationships damaged by talking politics. Around 14% say the damage is permanent.
And so:
Now, leaving aside the fact that this poll is from a company pushing corporate training products to improve interdepartmental communication and team-building, this kind of thing is easy to believe – especially if you spend any amount of time on Facebook. Or if you watch a lot of Fox News.
I can tell you from my own experience that when I go back to the states, I stay off politics as much as possible, although that’s partly because:
(1) For most of the Bush II admin, I was on the wrong side of the Socially Acceptable Political Opinion divide (i.e. I opposed the war and thought Gitmo, the Patriot Act and TSA no-fly lists were terrible, dangerous and useless ideas). No one wanted to hear about that for at least the first five years after 9/11 – not when the official White House/DOJ/DHS position was “If yr not with us, yr an honorary member of Al Qaeda, and if you know anyone like that, let us know”. And:
(2) The Fox News/MSNBC/Daily Kos/Breitbart/talk radio hyperpartisan echo chamber seemed to be expanding the reality gap between the two sides into batshit territory, and who wants to risk getting caught up in an argument with one of THOSE people?
However … there’s a lot this kind of poll doesn’t tell me. For example, how much of this is new? How would this compare to, say, 20 years ago? Or before Vietnam? Have we always been this insane about politics, or is this a recent development?
Which leads to the other missing point: how much of this being gun-shy about politics is the result of social media making it easier to get into toxic arguments?
I ask because one thing I’ve noticed is that, overall, the way people talk about politics online is a lot different from the way people talk about it face to face. Maybe it’s because I’ve never met the kind of people who show up at Tea Party rallies – or people who take Glenn Beck and Chuck Norris seriously – but that feared screaming match that I often dread actually never happens. Not even if I make a political remark in a public place where other people can hear me.
Which gets me to thinking that social media has been a major influence (alongside things like cable TV news) in shaping people’s perceptions of the nature and risks of political discourse – and amplifying them.
Or, again, maybe it’s just made us more hyperaware of something that’s been around for most of American history.
Either way, I wouldn’t be surprised if there was something to this survey – not that political discussions in themselves are risky in 2012, but that the majority of people in America THINK they are.
TRY IT AT HOME: The press release also gives some tips on how to have a productive political discussion. They’re good in theory, but in practice I don’t imagine too many people will follow them. And of course they're useless for Facebook rants.
No time to argue,
This is dF
Sometimes they are about pseudoscientific polls.
The “collateral damage” involves relationships with friends, family members and/or co-workers – three out of five respondents to the poll say they’ve had such relationships damaged by talking politics. Around 14% say the damage is permanent.
And so:
The study of more than 500 people found that only 15 percent of respondents believe they can express their full political views to others without getting upset. So, rather than risk an emotional verbal battle, 86 percent avoid political discussions and one in 10 report they stay away from political banter at all costs.
Now, leaving aside the fact that this poll is from a company pushing corporate training products to improve interdepartmental communication and team-building, this kind of thing is easy to believe – especially if you spend any amount of time on Facebook. Or if you watch a lot of Fox News.
I can tell you from my own experience that when I go back to the states, I stay off politics as much as possible, although that’s partly because:
(1) For most of the Bush II admin, I was on the wrong side of the Socially Acceptable Political Opinion divide (i.e. I opposed the war and thought Gitmo, the Patriot Act and TSA no-fly lists were terrible, dangerous and useless ideas). No one wanted to hear about that for at least the first five years after 9/11 – not when the official White House/DOJ/DHS position was “If yr not with us, yr an honorary member of Al Qaeda, and if you know anyone like that, let us know”. And:
(2) The Fox News/MSNBC/Daily Kos/Breitbart/talk radio hyperpartisan echo chamber seemed to be expanding the reality gap between the two sides into batshit territory, and who wants to risk getting caught up in an argument with one of THOSE people?
However … there’s a lot this kind of poll doesn’t tell me. For example, how much of this is new? How would this compare to, say, 20 years ago? Or before Vietnam? Have we always been this insane about politics, or is this a recent development?
Which leads to the other missing point: how much of this being gun-shy about politics is the result of social media making it easier to get into toxic arguments?
I ask because one thing I’ve noticed is that, overall, the way people talk about politics online is a lot different from the way people talk about it face to face. Maybe it’s because I’ve never met the kind of people who show up at Tea Party rallies – or people who take Glenn Beck and Chuck Norris seriously – but that feared screaming match that I often dread actually never happens. Not even if I make a political remark in a public place where other people can hear me.
Which gets me to thinking that social media has been a major influence (alongside things like cable TV news) in shaping people’s perceptions of the nature and risks of political discourse – and amplifying them.
Or, again, maybe it’s just made us more hyperaware of something that’s been around for most of American history.
Either way, I wouldn’t be surprised if there was something to this survey – not that political discussions in themselves are risky in 2012, but that the majority of people in America THINK they are.
TRY IT AT HOME: The press release also gives some tips on how to have a productive political discussion. They’re good in theory, but in practice I don’t imagine too many people will follow them. And of course they're useless for Facebook rants.
No time to argue,
This is dF
IN FUTURE, YOU CAN PRINT YR OWN MEAT
Aug. 16th, 2012 09:35 pmYr Fuck-Yeah-Science lede of the day:
Modern Meadow is pitching bioprinted meat as “a more environmentally-friendly way to satisfy a natural human craving for animal protein”:
So why not print it?
As you can imagine, there’s going to be resistance to the concept of printed food, which is why Forgacs tells Fast Company that they’re going to focus initially on 3D-printed leather products rather than anything edible.
Still. Printed meat!
If they can get past the regulatory/health issues, I do think there’s going to be a market for this. I don't think Morrissey will be tempted, no. But I can sum up the target market in three words:
Bacon on demand.
Fresh off the printer and onto yr plate,
This is dF
Modern Meadow is pitching bioprinted meat as “a more environmentally-friendly way to satisfy a natural human craving for animal protein”:
Co-founder Andras Forgacs has sharply criticized the overall cost of traditional livestock practices, saying "if you look at the resource intensity of everything that goes into a hamburger, it is an environmental train wreck."
So why not print it?
As you can imagine, there’s going to be resistance to the concept of printed food, which is why Forgacs tells Fast Company that they’re going to focus initially on 3D-printed leather products rather than anything edible.
Still. Printed meat!
If they can get past the regulatory/health issues, I do think there’s going to be a market for this. I don't think Morrissey will be tempted, no. But I can sum up the target market in three words:
Bacon on demand.
Fresh off the printer and onto yr plate,
This is dF
Yr Atavistic Science headline of the day:
io9 sums up the story nicely:
All of this is because a coastal economic development group called NC-20 claims the report is flawed because it includes climate change science. If it used only the linear-path method, the sea rise level would be much lower – which would be much more convenient for their coastal development plans. State Republicans agree, and are keen to help out.
See what they did there?
Scientific American has a pretty good rant about it here, and I can’t add anything except to say that when yr resorting to making certain scientific methods illegal for blatantly obvious reasons of economic convenience, you’ve pretty much lost the argument about climate change.
According to my calculations,
This is dF
io9 sums up the story nicely:
Faced with predictions that sea levels in the coastal areas of North Carolina will rise by a meter in the next century, legislators are considering bold action: making those predictions illegal. A bill being circulated in the Tarheel state would force scientists to estimate future sea levels on a linear path based on trends since 1900 — in other words, based on the simple assumption that trends always move in a straight line, no matter what.
All of this is because a coastal economic development group called NC-20 claims the report is flawed because it includes climate change science. If it used only the linear-path method, the sea rise level would be much lower – which would be much more convenient for their coastal development plans. State Republicans agree, and are keen to help out.
See what they did there?
Scientific American has a pretty good rant about it here, and I can’t add anything except to say that when yr resorting to making certain scientific methods illegal for blatantly obvious reasons of economic convenience, you’ve pretty much lost the argument about climate change.
According to my calculations,
This is dF
TELEPORTATION WARS!
May. 23rd, 2012 11:27 amYr Fuck-Yeah-21st-Century lede of the day:
I could elaborate, but it would only ruin it.
I do recommend reading the article if you want to know more.
Beam me up,
This is dF
I could elaborate, but it would only ruin it.
I do recommend reading the article if you want to know more.
Beam me up,
This is dF
No, really – it’s a shark with a friggin’ laser.
Granted, it’s a low-power clip-on laser. And it was really more of a test for that particular clamp design, as there’s no obvious scientific value in putting a laser on a shark.
Still, with the Pentagon working on remote-controlled sharkborgs, you never know.
Pass me the laser beam,
This is dF
Marine biologist-cum-TV personality Luke Tipple attached a 50-milliwatt green laser to a lemon shark off the coast of the Bahamas in late April. The escapade was sponsored by Wicked Lasers, a consumer-focused laser manufacturer based in Hong Kong that produces some of the most brilliant — and potentially dangerous — handheld lasers in the world.
Granted, it’s a low-power clip-on laser. And it was really more of a test for that particular clamp design, as there’s no obvious scientific value in putting a laser on a shark.
Still, with the Pentagon working on remote-controlled sharkborgs, you never know.
Pass me the laser beam,
This is dF
I’m originally from Tennessee, a state that doesn’t make national headlines very often, and when it does, it’s usually because of Republicans passing bad, atavistic laws.
Like allowing guns in bars. Or making it a felony to share yr Netflix account or post anything online that might offend anyone. Or allowing businesses to discriminate against gay people. Or banning teachers from mentioning gay people in any way, except when they’re acting on their moral convictions by denouncing gay students as demon spawn.
On the bright side, at least they haven't legalized the teaching of Creationism in science classes, which would –
Oh.
Never mind.
It's called Senate Bill 893, and while it doesn’t permit teachers to swap out evolution for Creationism as a scientific explanation for man’s origins, it does permit students to ask about it in class, and once they do, teachers are now required by law to discuss and explore Creationism – presumably for as often as the students bring it up.
And TN being what it is, and fundamentalist conservative parents being what they are, it’s a fair bet it will come up often. It only takes one kid to put Creationism on the table – a point I’m sure isn’t lost on the people who came up with SB 893.
Is this that big a deal? I think so – at least as far as public schools go. I’m a big believer inmaking Rick Santorum vomit church/state separation, and that includes using publicly funded schools to promote religious beliefs. And Creationism definitely counts as a religious belief. Conservatives can dress it up as science all they want. It’s still a religious belief. So SB 893 looks to me like a fairly obvious dodge to get around the church/state issue so Creationism can be taught in schools.
Not that I’m not 100% opposed to that. I’m certainly in favor of Creationism being mentioned in courses like History, Social Studies and Political Science in the context of, say, illustrating the church/state debate and the tactics deployed by fundamentalist Christian politicians to get around that separation. I’m even okay with Creationism being mentioned in science classes, if only to give students a textbook example of what is science and what is DEFINITELY NOT BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION science.
But SB 893 is a bad way to enable that because it empowers students, rather than teachers, to determine their science curriculum, even if it’s not science. Which isn’t a problem if yr a science teacher who thinks Creationism is science and evolution is bunk (in which case, yr not much of a science teacher).
Class dismissed,
This is dF
Like allowing guns in bars. Or making it a felony to share yr Netflix account or post anything online that might offend anyone. Or allowing businesses to discriminate against gay people. Or banning teachers from mentioning gay people in any way, except when they’re acting on their moral convictions by denouncing gay students as demon spawn.
On the bright side, at least they haven't legalized the teaching of Creationism in science classes, which would –
Oh.
Never mind.
It's called Senate Bill 893, and while it doesn’t permit teachers to swap out evolution for Creationism as a scientific explanation for man’s origins, it does permit students to ask about it in class, and once they do, teachers are now required by law to discuss and explore Creationism – presumably for as often as the students bring it up.
And TN being what it is, and fundamentalist conservative parents being what they are, it’s a fair bet it will come up often. It only takes one kid to put Creationism on the table – a point I’m sure isn’t lost on the people who came up with SB 893.
Is this that big a deal? I think so – at least as far as public schools go. I’m a big believer in
Not that I’m not 100% opposed to that. I’m certainly in favor of Creationism being mentioned in courses like History, Social Studies and Political Science in the context of, say, illustrating the church/state debate and the tactics deployed by fundamentalist Christian politicians to get around that separation. I’m even okay with Creationism being mentioned in science classes, if only to give students a textbook example of what is science and what is DEFINITELY NOT BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION science.
But SB 893 is a bad way to enable that because it empowers students, rather than teachers, to determine their science curriculum, even if it’s not science. Which isn’t a problem if yr a science teacher who thinks Creationism is science and evolution is bunk (in which case, yr not much of a science teacher).
Class dismissed,
This is dF
Gallium, oxygen, radium, lanthanum, and not a little artistic license.
Observe.
see more
PREREQUISITES FOR THIS JOKE: Having heard “Bad Romance” enough times. A general knowledge of chemistry is not required. In fact, it works better if yr knowledge of the Periodic Table is limited to the fact that there is such a thing.
Pass/fail,
This is dF
Observe.
see more
PREREQUISITES FOR THIS JOKE: Having heard “Bad Romance” enough times. A general knowledge of chemistry is not required. In fact, it works better if yr knowledge of the Periodic Table is limited to the fact that there is such a thing.
Pass/fail,
This is dF
A few interesting nuggets of data to add to the 1% v 99% “discussion”:
What happens when the 1% becomes the 100%?
An interesting thought experiment from Charles Stross on what it’s like to live like the 1% (in terms of Maslow's Needs pyramid) and what that would mean in a possible future in which wealth is redistributed to the point that we are all the 1% (or as close enough as makes no odds).
A series of unfortunate events for the 1%
Lemony Snicket makes a short list of observations about the nature of the #OWS debate.
Selected gems:
Disproportionate power of the 1% proven by science
An analysis of the relationships between 43,000 transnational corporations has identified around 147 companies, mostly banks, that hold disproportionate power over the global economy, reports New Scientist.
Which isn’t surprising, but two key findings of note: (1) a key problem isn’t so much the concentration of wealth itself but the tight-knitted relationships between those companies, which means that – as we found out in 2008 – if one fails, it is more likely to take others down with it, and (2) none of this is the product of a conspiracy – it’s just the way the system has evolved.
The last point is pretty important – partly because conspiracy theories are easy to propagate but hard to prove, but mainly because one of the challenges of the #OWS movement is being able to point to a specific group of people and saying, “This is their fault.” So far they’ve narrowed it down to Wall Street and Republicans. Which is a little too vague to be accurate.
Yr Total Coincidence Graphic of the day
Which obviously has nothing to do with anything. And you’d be a fool and a Socialist to suggest that it does.
#OWS = Merchandising opportunity
Robert and Diane Maresca of Long Island have applied to the US Trade & Patent Office to trademark the phrase “Occupy Wall St.” so that they can place it on "a wide variety of goods, including bumper stickers, shirts, beach bags, footwear, umbrellas, and hobo bags."
See what they did there?
Okay, I’m done now.
Money talks,
This is dF
What happens when the 1% becomes the 100%?
An interesting thought experiment from Charles Stross on what it’s like to live like the 1% (in terms of Maslow's Needs pyramid) and what that would mean in a possible future in which wealth is redistributed to the point that we are all the 1% (or as close enough as makes no odds).
A series of unfortunate events for the 1%
Lemony Snicket makes a short list of observations about the nature of the #OWS debate.
Selected gems:
4. People who say money doesn’t matter are like people who say cake doesn’t matter—it’s probably because they’ve already had a few slices.
5. There may not be a reason to share your cake. It is, after all, yours. You probably baked it yourself, in an oven of your own construction with ingredients you harvested yourself. It may be possible to keep your entire cake while explaining to any nearby hungry people just how reasonable you are.
7. Someone feeling wronged is like someone feeling thirsty. Don’t tell them they aren’t. Sit with them and have a drink.
5. There may not be a reason to share your cake. It is, after all, yours. You probably baked it yourself, in an oven of your own construction with ingredients you harvested yourself. It may be possible to keep your entire cake while explaining to any nearby hungry people just how reasonable you are.
7. Someone feeling wronged is like someone feeling thirsty. Don’t tell them they aren’t. Sit with them and have a drink.
Disproportionate power of the 1% proven by science
An analysis of the relationships between 43,000 transnational corporations has identified around 147 companies, mostly banks, that hold disproportionate power over the global economy, reports New Scientist.
Which isn’t surprising, but two key findings of note: (1) a key problem isn’t so much the concentration of wealth itself but the tight-knitted relationships between those companies, which means that – as we found out in 2008 – if one fails, it is more likely to take others down with it, and (2) none of this is the product of a conspiracy – it’s just the way the system has evolved.
The last point is pretty important – partly because conspiracy theories are easy to propagate but hard to prove, but mainly because one of the challenges of the #OWS movement is being able to point to a specific group of people and saying, “This is their fault.” So far they’ve narrowed it down to Wall Street and Republicans. Which is a little too vague to be accurate.
Yr Total Coincidence Graphic of the day
Which obviously has nothing to do with anything. And you’d be a fool and a Socialist to suggest that it does.
#OWS = Merchandising opportunity
Robert and Diane Maresca of Long Island have applied to the US Trade & Patent Office to trademark the phrase “Occupy Wall St.” so that they can place it on "a wide variety of goods, including bumper stickers, shirts, beach bags, footwear, umbrellas, and hobo bags."
See what they did there?
Okay, I’m done now.
Money talks,
This is dF
PRINTCRIME IN THE 21ST CENTURY
Sep. 24th, 2011 09:34 amITEM: Four men in South Texas are accused of committing $400,000 worth of fraud using an ATM card skimmer that they made using a 3D printer.
The details are pretty interesting. ATM card skimmers – which criminals stick over an ATM card slot to steal card data – have to be designed just right to look like they’re supposed to be part of the ATM machine. They’re also expensive – a skimmer kit can cost anywhere from $2,000 to $10,000.
Then someone in the gang heard about 3D printing, and – since professional 3D printing companies won’t let you print something like a card skimmer – they allegedly used proceeds from previous skimming scams to buy a 3D printer and make their own skimmers.
Desktop 3D printers aren’t cheap either, with prices starting at $10,000 or so. On the other hand, it’s cheaper and more efficient to buy one printer to make, say, 20 perfectly designed and duplicated card skimmers than it is to buy 20 new skimmers. And 3D printers are getting cheaper all the time.
The good news is that the gang still got caught, but apparently that’s more due to the gang being infiltrated by undercover police than people spotting the card skimmers.
Anyway, stuff like this fascinates the SF nerd in me – criminals printing tools to commit crimes with. Hopefully it won’t lead to some silly politicians demanding legislation that consumer 3D printers be banned or licensed.
But it probably will.
Fit to print,
This is dF
The details are pretty interesting. ATM card skimmers – which criminals stick over an ATM card slot to steal card data – have to be designed just right to look like they’re supposed to be part of the ATM machine. They’re also expensive – a skimmer kit can cost anywhere from $2,000 to $10,000.
Then someone in the gang heard about 3D printing, and – since professional 3D printing companies won’t let you print something like a card skimmer – they allegedly used proceeds from previous skimming scams to buy a 3D printer and make their own skimmers.
Desktop 3D printers aren’t cheap either, with prices starting at $10,000 or so. On the other hand, it’s cheaper and more efficient to buy one printer to make, say, 20 perfectly designed and duplicated card skimmers than it is to buy 20 new skimmers. And 3D printers are getting cheaper all the time.
The good news is that the gang still got caught, but apparently that’s more due to the gang being infiltrated by undercover police than people spotting the card skimmers.
Anyway, stuff like this fascinates the SF nerd in me – criminals printing tools to commit crimes with. Hopefully it won’t lead to some silly politicians demanding legislation that consumer 3D printers be banned or licensed.
But it probably will.
Fit to print,
This is dF
THIS IS YR BRAIN ON TV
Sep. 13th, 2011 10:53 amI get press releases.
Sometimes they’re about Chinese television sets with telepathic remote controls.
Well, okay, they’re never about that. Until now.
Here’s how that (allegedly) works:
And you thought 3D TV sets were the future.
Feel free to insert paranoid Crichton-style worst-case techno-thriller scenario here (it’s a plot by China to read our minds!).
Does it actually work? Damned if I know. I do know that it’s not quite as flaky as it sounds – plenty of companies have sunk lots of R&D money into developing brain-scanning tech that can translate thoughts into interface controls for computers (as has the Pentagon, incidentally).
But even assuming NeuroSky’s tech works as advertised, as a mass-market concept, I don't see the average consumer being willing to strap a brain-helmet on their head just so they can flip channels by thinking about them, or whatever – at least once the novelty value wears off.
That said, hurrah for the 21st Century, eh?
Don’t think,
This is dF
Sometimes they’re about Chinese television sets with telepathic remote controls.
Well, okay, they’re never about that. Until now.
Here’s how that (allegedly) works:
NeuroSky’s brainwave technology can detect human brainwave patterns revealing a person’s mental state. The NeuroSky MindReader then translates the monitored brainwaves into digital signals that the television can recognize. The brain-controlled TV applications allow users to develop control over their concentration and relaxation abilities through entertainment applications.
And you thought 3D TV sets were the future.
Feel free to insert paranoid Crichton-style worst-case techno-thriller scenario here (it’s a plot by China to read our minds!).
Does it actually work? Damned if I know. I do know that it’s not quite as flaky as it sounds – plenty of companies have sunk lots of R&D money into developing brain-scanning tech that can translate thoughts into interface controls for computers (as has the Pentagon, incidentally).
But even assuming NeuroSky’s tech works as advertised, as a mass-market concept, I don't see the average consumer being willing to strap a brain-helmet on their head just so they can flip channels by thinking about them, or whatever – at least once the novelty value wears off.
That said, hurrah for the 21st Century, eh?
Don’t think,
This is dF
GANDHI ON MARS
Jun. 28th, 2011 09:54 amYr Life On Mars lede of the day:
There’s a movie studio screenplay pitch in here somewhere. Or at least another novel idea for Seth Grahame-Smith.
READ MORE ABOUT IT: "Pareidolia" is the scientific term for seeing faces (or other significant objects) where they aren't. Read the article for more information.
Mars needs Gandhis,
This is dF
There’s a movie studio screenplay pitch in here somewhere. Or at least another novel idea for Seth Grahame-Smith.
READ MORE ABOUT IT: "Pareidolia" is the scientific term for seeing faces (or other significant objects) where they aren't. Read the article for more information.
Mars needs Gandhis,
This is dF
Yr Fortean Science lede of the day:
Well of COURSE they did.
According to Dr Jan Bondeson, author of the new book, Amazing Dogs: A Cabinet of Canine Curiosities:
Ja wohl,
This is dF
Well of COURSE they did.
According to Dr Jan Bondeson, author of the new book, Amazing Dogs: A Cabinet of Canine Curiosities:
The forerunner of them all was Rolf, an Airedale terrier who 'spoke' through tapping his paw against a board, each letter of the alphabet being represented by a certain number of taps.
He was said to have speculated about religion, learnt foreign languages, wrote poetry and asked a visiting noblewoman 'could you wag your tail?'
Another dog, a Dachschund named Kurwenal […] was said to speak using a different number of barks for each letter, and told his biographer he would be voting for Hindenburg.
Another dog, a German pointer named Don, went one step further - imitating a human voice to bark "Hungry! Give me cakes", in German.
He was said to have speculated about religion, learnt foreign languages, wrote poetry and asked a visiting noblewoman 'could you wag your tail?'
Another dog, a Dachschund named Kurwenal […] was said to speak using a different number of barks for each letter, and told his biographer he would be voting for Hindenburg.
Another dog, a German pointer named Don, went one step further - imitating a human voice to bark "Hungry! Give me cakes", in German.
Ja wohl,
This is dF
WHAT A TORNADO PATH LOOKS LIKE FROM SPACE
Jun. 8th, 2011 07:40 pmSpecifically, the one that struck in Massachusetts last week.
[Photo courtesy of NASA]
While we’re on the subject of tornados – of which the US has seen an insane number this year – some people have used Twisterpalooza to make a case that climate change is real.
As usual, the reality is more complex. I’m no expert, obviously, but you could do worse than reading this piece from Maggie Koerth-Baker to acquire some helpful context in understanding the scientific relationship between climate change and weather (remembering that climate and weather are not the same thing).
Gimme shelter,
This is dF
[Photo courtesy of NASA]
While we’re on the subject of tornados – of which the US has seen an insane number this year – some people have used Twisterpalooza to make a case that climate change is real.
As usual, the reality is more complex. I’m no expert, obviously, but you could do worse than reading this piece from Maggie Koerth-Baker to acquire some helpful context in understanding the scientific relationship between climate change and weather (remembering that climate and weather are not the same thing).
Gimme shelter,
This is dF
ATHEISTS DO IT SHAMELESSLY
May. 25th, 2011 12:18 pmITEM: Atheists have better sex lives than religious people, who are troubled by feelings of guilt after orgasm, according to science.
A new study by researchers at Kansas University finds that believers and non-believers all cop to activities such as masturbation, watching pornography, having oral sex and pursuing affairs, but followers of religion enjoy them less.
Which may seem like an obvious result. But maybe not.
I mean, sure, you’d expect religious people to feel more guilty about sexual activity after the fact. But you’d think that would make them enjoy the actual sex more, not less. Forbidden fruit and all.
But then I’ve always suspected that the real reason evangelical Christians want to keep all the sexual taboos intact is to make sex more exciting for them whilst keeping the kink level within their narrow comfort zones.
It’s just a theory, mind.
No shame,
This is dF
A new study by researchers at Kansas University finds that believers and non-believers all cop to activities such as masturbation, watching pornography, having oral sex and pursuing affairs, but followers of religion enjoy them less.
Strict religions such as Mormons ranked highest on the scale of sexual guilt. Their average score was 8.19 out of 10. They were followed closely behind by Jehovah's Witness, Pentecostal, Seventh Day Adventist, and Baptist.
Catholics rated their levels of sexual guilt at 6.34 while Lutherans came slightly lower at 5.88 . In contrast, atheists and agnostics ranked at 4.71 and 4.81 respectively.
Catholics rated their levels of sexual guilt at 6.34 while Lutherans came slightly lower at 5.88 . In contrast, atheists and agnostics ranked at 4.71 and 4.81 respectively.
Which may seem like an obvious result. But maybe not.
I mean, sure, you’d expect religious people to feel more guilty about sexual activity after the fact. But you’d think that would make them enjoy the actual sex more, not less. Forbidden fruit and all.
But then I’ve always suspected that the real reason evangelical Christians want to keep all the sexual taboos intact is to make sex more exciting for them whilst keeping the kink level within their narrow comfort zones.
Overheard in the men’s room at the recent Conservative Political Action Conference:
“These gawdamn liberals and their gawdamn permissiveness, it’s getting out of hand, A.J. There’s hardcore sex everywhere you look these days – double-penetration in prime time, bukkake on Sundays, free dildos for the kids, nothing’s sacred anymore.”
“Don’t I know it. All my filthy desires have been maxxed out like a Congressman’s charge account. Time was all I had to see was some buxom bitch in a tight sweater to get it up. Now I gotta subscribe to Chix With Dicks just to get a gawdamn erection and hope the press don’t find out, and between the gawdamn Facebooks and Twitters it’s only as matter of time. Call that progress, cos I don’t.”
“These gawdamn liberals and their gawdamn permissiveness, it’s getting out of hand, A.J. There’s hardcore sex everywhere you look these days – double-penetration in prime time, bukkake on Sundays, free dildos for the kids, nothing’s sacred anymore.”
“Don’t I know it. All my filthy desires have been maxxed out like a Congressman’s charge account. Time was all I had to see was some buxom bitch in a tight sweater to get it up. Now I gotta subscribe to Chix With Dicks just to get a gawdamn erection and hope the press don’t find out, and between the gawdamn Facebooks and Twitters it’s only as matter of time. Call that progress, cos I don’t.”
It’s just a theory, mind.
No shame,
This is dF
WHERE HAVE ALL THE SNAKES GONE?
Mar. 18th, 2011 11:34 amOh, that’s right, it’s St Patrick’s Day in the US, isn’t it?
Very well, here’s my contribution.
Yes, it’s relevant.
More or less.
Call me Snake,
This is dF
Very well, here’s my contribution.
Yes, it’s relevant.
More or less.
Call me Snake,
This is dF
SPINELESS FOR HER PLEASURE
Mar. 11th, 2011 02:10 amYr Mondo Sexy Science headline of the day:
[NOTE: Penises and penile spines not pictured]
The key result of this shedding of penile spines:
Which means that coming too soon is relative, evolutionarily speaking.
Anyway, yr welcome.
All night long,
This is dF
[NOTE: Penises and penile spines not pictured]
The key result of this shedding of penile spines:
Penile spines are barb-like structures found in many mammals. Their role remains under debate, and they may play different roles in different species. […]
They may increase stimulation for the male during mating. […]
The researchers believe the loss of these spines in humans may be related to changes in human courtship.
The loss of spines, they say, would result in less sensitivity and longer copulation […]
They may increase stimulation for the male during mating. […]
The researchers believe the loss of these spines in humans may be related to changes in human courtship.
The loss of spines, they say, would result in less sensitivity and longer copulation […]
Which means that coming too soon is relative, evolutionarily speaking.
Anyway, yr welcome.
All night long,
This is dF
ON THE INTERNET NO ONE KNOWS YR A ROBOT
Feb. 12th, 2011 02:19 amITEM: Yr Robot Future Headline of the day:
Says RoboEarth researcher Dr Markus Waibel from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich:
And then there’s this golden nugget:
Which will come in handy when SkyNet goes online.
Ha ha. Not really.
But imagine the fun once robots become sentient and start signing up for Facebook accounts.
God I love living in the 21st Century.
Wiki wiki wiki,
This is dF
Says RoboEarth researcher Dr Markus Waibel from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich:
"Wikipedia is something that humans use to share knowledge, that everyone can edit, contribute knowledge to and access," he said. "Something like that does not exist for robots."
It would be great, he said, if a robot could enter a location that it had never visited before, consult RoboEarth to learn about that place and the objects and tasks in it and then quickly get to work.
While other projects are working on standardising the way robots sense the world and encode the information they find, RoboEarth tries to go further.
"The key is allowing robots to share knowledge," said Dr Waibel. "That's really new."
It would be great, he said, if a robot could enter a location that it had never visited before, consult RoboEarth to learn about that place and the objects and tasks in it and then quickly get to work.
While other projects are working on standardising the way robots sense the world and encode the information they find, RoboEarth tries to go further.
"The key is allowing robots to share knowledge," said Dr Waibel. "That's really new."
And then there’s this golden nugget:
Researchers behind it hope it will allow robots to come into service more quickly, armed with a growing library of knowledge about their human masters.
Which will come in handy when SkyNet goes online.
Ha ha. Not really.
But imagine the fun once robots become sentient and start signing up for Facebook accounts.
God I love living in the 21st Century.
Wiki wiki wiki,
This is dF
