I loathe Sarah Palin.
Just putting that out there.
For your listening pleasure. Hopefully.
6.12.2009
6.05.2009
Knock knock.
Geniuses have conducted a tickle study with apes. Their laughs have been recorded and can be found here for your listening pleasure. The bonobo laugh is kind of adorable.
Someone must have told them the one about the rabbi and the priest.
Someone must have told them the one about the rabbi and the priest.
6.02.2009
You mished me.
It's Better To Drink Beer After Exercise Than Water
Submitted by Julie on November 2, 2007 - 8:47pm. Diet & FitnessHealthHealth & ScienceResearch
Researchers at Granada University in Spain have come across a discovery that will undoubtedly please athletes and sports enthusiasts - a pint of beer post-workout or match is better at rehydrating the human body than water.
Professor Manuel Garzon, a member of Granada's medical faculty, made the finding after tests on 25 students over several months. Researchers believe that it is the sugars, salts, and bubbles in a beer that may help people absorb fluids more quickly.
The subjects in the study were asked to run on a treadmill at temperatures of 104F (40C) until they were close to exhaustion. Once they had reached the point of giving up, researchers measured their hydration levels, motor skills, and concentration ability.
Half of the subjects were given two half pints of Spanish lager to drink, and the other half were given just water.
Garzon said that the rehydration effection in those who were given beer was "slightly better" than those who were given only water. He also believes that the carbon dioxide in beer helps quench thirst more quickly, and that beer's carbohydrates replace calories lost during physical exertion.
The average person loses around 1 liter (33oz) of water for every hour of exercise in sweat. Rehydrating after a workout is crucial, as a lack of hydration is more likely to make one feel tired, fuzzyheaded, and suffer from headaches.
Based on the results of the study, researchers recommend moderate consumption of beer as a part of athletes' diets. "Moderate consumption" for men is 500ml per day, and for women is 250ml per day.
So that explains why Babe Ruth was so good. His method of training was nearly 100 years ahead of its time.
Submitted by Julie on November 2, 2007 - 8:47pm. Diet & FitnessHealthHealth & ScienceResearch
Researchers at Granada University in Spain have come across a discovery that will undoubtedly please athletes and sports enthusiasts - a pint of beer post-workout or match is better at rehydrating the human body than water.
Professor Manuel Garzon, a member of Granada's medical faculty, made the finding after tests on 25 students over several months. Researchers believe that it is the sugars, salts, and bubbles in a beer that may help people absorb fluids more quickly.
The subjects in the study were asked to run on a treadmill at temperatures of 104F (40C) until they were close to exhaustion. Once they had reached the point of giving up, researchers measured their hydration levels, motor skills, and concentration ability.
Half of the subjects were given two half pints of Spanish lager to drink, and the other half were given just water.
Garzon said that the rehydration effection in those who were given beer was "slightly better" than those who were given only water. He also believes that the carbon dioxide in beer helps quench thirst more quickly, and that beer's carbohydrates replace calories lost during physical exertion.
The average person loses around 1 liter (33oz) of water for every hour of exercise in sweat. Rehydrating after a workout is crucial, as a lack of hydration is more likely to make one feel tired, fuzzyheaded, and suffer from headaches.
Based on the results of the study, researchers recommend moderate consumption of beer as a part of athletes' diets. "Moderate consumption" for men is 500ml per day, and for women is 250ml per day.
So that explains why Babe Ruth was so good. His method of training was nearly 100 years ahead of its time.
5.21.2009
5.20.2009
If you're happy and you know it take a risk!
This is a pretty cool article, I would place us in the "golden third" for sure!
Absinthe and Flamethrowers: Ruminations on the Art of Living Dangerously
Bill Gurstelle is Geek Dad’s current guest blogger.
I’ve spent the last two years writing my just released book Absinthe and Flamethrowers: Projects and Ruminations on the Art of Living Dangerously. It’s an exploration of a single, important question, which I think is relevant to GeekDads, or anybody raising children, for that matter.Are people who take risks happier than those who do not?
It’s a simple question, but it took a while to come up with an answer. First of all, I had to better define the question. Physical risks? Emotional risks? Monetary risks? All of them? I looked at it a number of ways and decided to focus on physical risk taking. Basically, I wanted to know if it was intrinsically better to be an Evel Knievel or a Caspar Milquetoast? Better to be Chuck Yeager or Niles Crain? Are lion tamers happier with their lives than monks?
The answer is a bit complex. Psychologists can assess and numerically describe a person’s risk-taking proclivity. Risk-taking behavior can be summarized as a single number from one to 100. A one is a house-bound agoraphobe and a 100 behaves like a fire-eating crazy person. Not surprisingly, the distribution of risk-taking proclivity is described by a normal bell-shaped curve. Most people cluster around the mean score, as the graph below shows:
But here’s the cool thing.
I found that moderate, rational risk takers, that is, those with scores between the mean and one standard deviation to the right are the people who are most satisfied with their lives. I call that area “the golden third” because it’s about 1/3 of the population. Studies show that people who take just a bit more risks than average, that is, those in the golden third, tend to do better than average. They tend to be happier and more fulfilled. To me, that’s a stunning conclusion. And it’s something for parents to think about, as well.
I also found that getting good at risk taking requires practice. So I researched and experimented, coming up with dozens of rather interesting projects to build risk-taking skills. For instance, if you know what to do, you can walk into a Home Depot and come out with everything you need to build a rocket – a real rocket. You can make gunpowder. You can throw knives, eat dangerous food, do all sorts of things that would make your mother shudder. But it starts with knowing what to do and what not to do.
So get out there, geek dads, and live life dangerously and artfully.
http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2009/05/absinthe-and-flamethrowers-ruminations-on-the-art-of-living-dangerously/
wait, is it kosher to re-blog someone else?
loves! -M
Absinthe and Flamethrowers: Ruminations on the Art of Living Dangerously
Bill Gurstelle is Geek Dad’s current guest blogger.
I’ve spent the last two years writing my just released book Absinthe and Flamethrowers: Projects and Ruminations on the Art of Living Dangerously. It’s an exploration of a single, important question, which I think is relevant to GeekDads, or anybody raising children, for that matter.Are people who take risks happier than those who do not?
It’s a simple question, but it took a while to come up with an answer. First of all, I had to better define the question. Physical risks? Emotional risks? Monetary risks? All of them? I looked at it a number of ways and decided to focus on physical risk taking. Basically, I wanted to know if it was intrinsically better to be an Evel Knievel or a Caspar Milquetoast? Better to be Chuck Yeager or Niles Crain? Are lion tamers happier with their lives than monks?
The answer is a bit complex. Psychologists can assess and numerically describe a person’s risk-taking proclivity. Risk-taking behavior can be summarized as a single number from one to 100. A one is a house-bound agoraphobe and a 100 behaves like a fire-eating crazy person. Not surprisingly, the distribution of risk-taking proclivity is described by a normal bell-shaped curve. Most people cluster around the mean score, as the graph below shows:
But here’s the cool thing.
I found that moderate, rational risk takers, that is, those with scores between the mean and one standard deviation to the right are the people who are most satisfied with their lives. I call that area “the golden third” because it’s about 1/3 of the population. Studies show that people who take just a bit more risks than average, that is, those in the golden third, tend to do better than average. They tend to be happier and more fulfilled. To me, that’s a stunning conclusion. And it’s something for parents to think about, as well.
I also found that getting good at risk taking requires practice. So I researched and experimented, coming up with dozens of rather interesting projects to build risk-taking skills. For instance, if you know what to do, you can walk into a Home Depot and come out with everything you need to build a rocket – a real rocket. You can make gunpowder. You can throw knives, eat dangerous food, do all sorts of things that would make your mother shudder. But it starts with knowing what to do and what not to do.
So get out there, geek dads, and live life dangerously and artfully.
http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2009/05/absinthe-and-flamethrowers-ruminations-on-the-art-of-living-dangerously/
wait, is it kosher to re-blog someone else?
loves! -M
5.06.2009
Brought to you by the letter P.
Now I'm not saying that I deserve ALL of the credit for getting the ball rolling on this one but you can't deny the connection here.
Leading headline on MSN homepage.
Leading headline on MSN homepage.
4.30.2009
4.28.2009
You better hope these ants don't start talking.
Mycocepurus smithii
A group of Amazonian ants have evolved an extremely unusual social system: They are all female and reproduce via cloning. Though their sexual organs have virtually disappeared, they have also gained some extraordinary abilities.
University of Arizona biologist Anna Himler orginally began studying the ants, called Mycocepurus smithii, because they had incredible success as farmers. Many breeds of ant keep domesticated “farms” where they breed various kinds of fungus for nourishment. But Mycocepurus smithii was able to breed fungus far more successfully, and in greater varieties, than other ants Himler had encountered.
As she and her team studied the insects, they realized there were no male ants anywhere to be found. Himler told the BBC that it’s possible the ants evolved so as “not to operate under the usual constraints of sexual reproduction.” Interestingly, the fungi that the ants cultivate also reproduce asexually. But why would these ants choose to emulate the reproductive cycle favored by their crops? Himler explains:
“It avoids the energetic cost of producing males, and doubles the number of reproductive females produced each generation from 50% to 100% of the offspring.”
All the members of the colony are clones of the queen. While that means the queen can control every aspect of the population, it also makes the colony vulnerable to pandemics. A virus that can kill one ant can kill all of them, since they all have the exact same immune systems. On the other hand, it seems that a lack of men gave these women more time and energy to cultivate some of the most elaborate forms of ant agriculture ever studied.
According to Himler, ants often evolve highly unusual reproductive strategies. But all-female ant societies are highly rare.
4.26.2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
