Makes you wanna go ‘Duh!’

Too much alcohol linked to unsafe sex, study confirms
http://yourlife.usatoday.com/health/story/2011-12-13/Too-much-alcohol-linked-to-unsafe-sex-study-confirms/51880212/1

In yet another case of spending money to confirm the blindingly obvious, researchers have once again confirmed that beer goggles lead to unsafe sex. I, personally, am at a loss on why anyone would even waste the time to write a grant application, let alone a funding agency reading it, then ponying up money for it. How many studies have confirmed time after time after time that alcohol negatively impacts decision making? Yet, it seems because it has HIV attached to it, researchers can get paid to do virtually the same work all over again coming, amazingly, to the exact same conclusion one could get with an afternoon’s read of the literature.

Another cancer vaccine that shows promise

Cancer Vaccine Significantly Reduces Tumor Size
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/239115.php

Yes, it is working with animal models, so yes, it is well away from any chance of being useful to humans at this point, but it is quite interesting to see their success. Others will build on this approach (presuming they are not strangled by our moronic patent system currently designed specifically to smother innovation) and it is conceivable that in another couple of decades the majority of cancer will be eliminated.

All we have to do is work out the longevity treatments so I can live forever…

It isn’t the idea that is bad, it is the implementation!

The Cellulosic Ethanol Debacle
Congress mandated purchase of 250 million gallons in 2011. Actual production: 6.6 million.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204012004577072470158115782.html

Yes, what is described in the article (forcing refineries to buy products, then penalizing them when they can’t because the products don’t exist) is brain dead stupid, but the problem isn’t in the intention (creating an environment to help alternatives reach economies of scale), it is with the implementation (mandating scientific breakthroughs). It is worsened by the inevitable politics and favoritism inherent in awarding such large sums of money for specific technology implemented by specific companies (Obama’s insistent backing of failed Solyndra is a perfect example). The government actually already has in place effective ways to promote research and commercialize that which is successful: SBIR (Small Business Innovative Research) grants. Small sums of money (I would say a wee bit too small, so small that it becomes essentially impossible for someone like me to work on speculative research, but if they only doubled or tripled the minimum amounts then people like me might be able to actually afford to do some research (if I could convince them to actually fund me, but that is another issue)) spread over a very large number of users vastly increases the probability of success. I am not sure, but suspect that the money pissed away into the Solyndra black hole is likely more than is spend on the entire SBIR program, system wide, how much more effective would it be to spend it piecemeal instead?

Also, my complaint is that the parameters are way too narrow to allow for real creativity. DARPA does a much better job (in general) of clearly defining outcomes without speculating at all on ways of achieving those outcomes. If, for instance, instead of saying cellulosic ethanol had to be used, instead say some sort of fuel equivalent from renewable sources had to be used. That would allow people like me who want to turn grass into diesel equivalents to be eligible. Also, the reward should be strictly on a per-use basis, meaning if I produce 100 gallons of whatever that I could sell it for some subsidized price to a guaranteed customer. For instance, if I can prove that my product works equally as well as diesel (or gasoline) and the government subsidized it at a dollar a gallon, then I should be able to sell my product for a dollar more a gallon. Further, the government should guarantee the sale of the product (as long as it meets the standards (which should be very inexpensive and fast to test)) and act as the purchaser of last resort. That way, I, as a little guy, can justify spending my time and effort on some highly speculative research that I can personally be rewarded with. Thus, you remove even the need to compete for SBIR resources and the government only pays for success.

Too bad our government is dedicated to making the wealthy even more rich and not actually interested in supporting the ordinary Joe in his efforts to make the world a better place.

She looks great, except for one thing…

She has a case of Dunlop’s disease almost as bad as mine:

Glamour Magazine Features (gasp!) a Real Woman!
http://feelgoodstyle.com/2011/12/05/lizzie-miller/

Lizzie Miller

I talked briefly about non-stick women here: http://sol-biotech.com/wordpress/2011/12/12/alternative-ways-to-evaluate-the-economy/ and I applaud the intention of popularizing non-stick women, but really, isn’t it possible to find women who look just like Lizzie without the belly? Too much of a good thing is still too much!

The morons did it!

They shut down the ports:

Port of Oakland shut down
Day of action results in at least 27 arrests in three cities
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/13/port_of_oakland_shut_down/singleton/

Never mind that those most hurt are the 99% who are trying to pay their bills! It seems to have escaped these people that the rich people are not hurt by losing a small fraction of their income, but the poor (and most middle class!) are. Even if they shut down the ports for a long time (see The costs of a port shutdown) it still would not have any impact on the day-to-day activities of the 1% they claim they are attempting to hurt, instead it would make more of the 99% homeless and destitute and shut down lots and lots of small employers who would likely foolishly try to stave off layoffs by spending their last dollars instead of doing what the 1% would do and just shut down the companies affected. As I suggested earlier, this is probably the beginning of the end for OWS. Soon they will be labeled as terrorists by our Great Leader and rounded up and shuffled off to military prisons never to be heard from again. If I were a fan of conspiracy theories, I would suggest that the 1% put this idea into the (air)heads of the OWS just so such activities would be justified.

The time of the Anthropocene

Is it time to embrace climate change?
Some scientist believe we’ve already created a new geological epoch — and it may not be a bad thing
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/13/is_it_time_to_embrace_climate_change/singleton/

Reading the comments was quite instructive. It seems the clear tilt is against the author. This is the exact same thing I rail against, the subject is so politicized that it is impossible to talk about the subject in a rational manner.

Regarding the idea of the Anthropocene epoch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene), I like it a lot. I have read a couple of places that the observed trends in global warming have stronger ties to the conversion of wilderness to farmland (something that seems incapable of discussion, btw), so I would suggest that the epoch began with the conversion of hunter-gatherers to farmers (though the idea that our ancestor’s hunting prowess was already impacting the environment is persuasive as well). There are simply too many humans to have no impact on our globe, though I am positive that we can have a vastly lower impact at even higher populations (see http://sol-biotech.com/wordpress/2011/10/30/one-trillion-people/). Rather than insisting on driving us back to the stone age, as so many environmentalists seem to insist, perhaps we can discuss ways of minimizing our impact while actually moving forward technologically.

I also liked this comment in the article:

…environmentalists should concentrate on making clean energy cheap by means of technological R&D rather than trying to make dirty energy expensive by means of taxes or cap-and-trade schemes has been vindicated by the political failure of efforts to artificially increase dirty energy prices, proposals that probably would have been doomed even in the absence of the Great Recession.

Too bad the author is so roundly dismissed.

But can the electrically generated eye _see_?

Building the body electric
Eyes can be grown in a frog’s gut by changing cells’ electrical properties
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/336783/title/Building_the_body_electric

I believe that Science News only allows some articles to be free for a certain period of time, so this link might not always be valid. The gist of the article is that scientists, in addition to being able to regrow tails of tadpoles with small jolts of electricity, were able to actually grow complete eyes anywhere they wanted to using a similar trick. While it is certainly very far from any sort of application to humans, it does lead to interesting potential that wasn’t so exciting before. I have also read articles in the past that describe research that indicates that scar tissue is actually the first stages of tissue regeneration that is somehow interrupted in humans, so the idea is that the newt’s ability to regenerate lost limbs is inherent in the human genome and has been lost. If we can somehow understand how the regeneration process is being interrupted we could grow back lost limbs, and now possibly even something as complex as eyes!

Alternative ways to evaluate the economy…

I don’t like to endlessly post from the same site because then it looks like I only spend my time on a single site all day.  Thus, as much as I like the site Cracked.com I don’t want to clutter up my site with links there.  However, sometimes it is just too good to resist and this is one of those times.

7 Bizarre Trends That Predict an Economic Collapse
http://www.cracked.com/article_19567_7-bizarre-trends-that-predict-economic-collapse.html

I am not sure which is my favorite, but I really like these two:

#6. Waitresses Get Prettier

When the economy goes belly-up, attractiveness isn’t as valuable as actual skill, and attractive people get laid off just like everyone else — so they temporarily drift back to a job that doesn’t require schooling but offers great tips if you have a nice smile. When the economy picks up again, they return to higher-paying jobs.

They even have a link to Investopedia: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/h/hot-waitress-economic-indicator.asp!

#2. Romance Novel Sales Spike and Playboy Models Get Heavier

I like the part about models getting heavier:

…men also prefer a little more realism in their sexual fantasies when facing hardship. Sure, they’re still reading their Playboy and doing some daydreaming of their own — but instead of dreaming about that impossibly measured Playmate, research suggests that under economic duress, men prefer drooling over taller, older and more realistically proportioned Playmates. Indeed, Playmates of the Year during crappy fiscal years have been consistently older and heavier, with larger waists and waist-to-hip ratios than their good-economy counterparts.

I prefer women with curves, but I can think back to when I was much younger and bought into the idea that skinny blonds were perfection. Since I am totally into brunettes with curves today (and have been for several decades (and what I was lucky enough to marry: http://sol-system.com/koxenrider/glamor_pics/index.html)) I have convinced myself that when I was young I was programmed by the media on what was deemed beautiful and only after I matured did I start making my own choices. It is interesting to me to read that it seems taste in women’s bodies shifts with the economic climate. I wonder if women prefer pictures of women with more curves during economic hard times. I guess one could evaluate that by looking at the covers of women’s magazines and see if there is any trend.

Throw those damn bums out, the OTHER bums!

Poll: Voters want to throw ’em out
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/09/poll-voters-want-to-throw-em-out/?hpt=hp_bn3

Sounds like a clear referendum on Congress, eh?

…76 percent of voters said most members of Congress do not deserve to be re-elected, the highest percentage Gallup measured in 19 years of asking that question. And the 20% who say congressional members should be re-elected is a record low-one point below the previous low recorded in August.

However, just below is this:

…more than half don’t want their own member to be voted out of Congress. Fifty-three percent say their own representative deserves to be re-elected and almost four in 10 say their congressman does not.

We will never see any form of meaningful change when you keep seeing this sort of dynamic. “Throw the other bums out” just isn’t a meaningful slogan!