Science recommends not having sex with beings from the future

Via PopSci, comes a study done with tiny shrimp to see the effects of having sex with members of your species from a different time. The study was done between mates that were 160 generations apart and resulted in an earlier death rate:

They found that females that mated with males from the past or future died off sooner than those that mated with their own generation. The longer the time-shift, the earlier they died: The 22-year time difference shortened female lifetimes by 12 percent; the effect was 3 percent for the 11-year time-shift.

Interestingly, this didn’t affect the females’ reproductive success. Those that lived shorter lives produced the same average number of offspring, they just did it at a faster pace. “Females’ life histories are complex and are constantly adjusted,” explains study co-author Thomas Lenormand. These adjustments reflect the trade-offs between survival and reproduction in nature.

Brine shrimp are part of an interesting class of animal whose eggs can survive decades of drought in a form of dormancy known as cryptobiosis. Once the eggs are reintroduced to water—either in nature or in the lab—they hatch. The species therefore makes an ideal subject for a time-traveling experiment like this one.

What makes time-shifting sex hazardous to health is something called antagonistic coevolution, a way that different species (parasites and hosts, for example) or members of the same species (males and females) adapt to each other to promote their own individual reproductive interests. In nature’s sex wars, males campaign for more offspring—the proverbial seed-spreading—while females play hard-to-get because they bear most of the burden of reproduction and parenthood.

 

Amazon terminates California based Affiliates in response to proposed California tax

I’ve been an Amazon.com Affiliate (making money from Amazon ads) since 1997. This morning I received an email that I would no longer be part of the program because I live in California and Californians are assholes. More specifically: Californians are hippie Socialist assholes who elect hippie Socialists to every level of government and look to fix their failed economic system by taxing the people who work so they can give more to those that don’t. In response to what has been called the “Amazon tax”, taxing purchases made online, Amazon.com has decided to terminate all California Affiliate advertising.

Instead cutting the ridiculous entitlements that I have witnessed at least a dozen people take complete illegitimate advantage of or encouraging economic growth, the state is sticking to it’s guns on punishing workers.

It may not completely affect me because I registered my LLC in Texas precisely because of California’s anti-business tax policies so I will just switch my Amazon account to the Texas address – HOWEVER… Texas is currently negotiating the same law. Whaaaat? chyea… It’s been delayed and an alternate deal proposed and there looks like there is hope..maybe…but not definite. Still though: what the f#ck about everyone else who DOESN’T have an option to reassign the state in their accounts? California doesn’t have the same hope that Texas has of this getting reformatted. Californians are screwed. California screwed. Cali-fornicated. Thanks a lot California Liberals. You guys suck.

Here’s the message:

Hello,

For well over a decade, the Amazon Associates Program has worked with thousands of California residents. Unfortunately, a potential new law that may be signed by Governor Brown compels us to terminate this program for California-based participants. It specifically imposes the collection of taxes from consumers on sales by online retailers – including but not limited to those referred by California-based marketing affiliates like you – even if those retailers have no physical presence in the state.

We oppose this bill because it is unconstitutional and counterproductive. It is supported by big-box retailers, most of which are based outside California, that seek to harm the affiliate advertising programs of their competitors. Similar legislation in other states has led to job and income losses, and little, if any, new tax revenue. We deeply regret that we must take this action.

As a result, we will terminate contracts with all California residents that are participants in the Amazon Associates Program as of the date (if any) that the California law becomes effective. We will send a follow-up notice to you confirming the termination date if the California law is enacted. In the event that the California law does not become effective before September 30, 2011, we withdraw this notice. As of the termination date, California residents will no longer receive advertising fees for sales referred to Amazon.com, Endless.com, MYHABIT.COM or SmallParts.com. Please be assured that all qualifying advertising fees earned on or before the termination date will be processed and paid in full in accordance with the regular payment schedule.

You are receiving this email because our records indicate that you are a resident of California. If you are not currently a resident of California, or if you are relocating to another state in the near future, you can manage the details of your Associates account here. And if you relocate to another state in the near future please contact us for reinstatement into the Amazon Associates Program.

To avoid confusion, we would like to clarify that this development will only impact our ability to offer the Associates Program to California residents and will not affect their ability to purchase from Amazon.com, Endless.com, MYHABIT.COM or SmallParts.com.

We have enjoyed working with you and other California-based participants in the Amazon Associates Program and, if this situation is rectified, would very much welcome the opportunity to re-open our Associates Program to California residents. We are also working on alternative ways to help California residents monetize their websites and we will be sure to contact you when these become available.

Regards,

The Amazon Associates Team

Scott Adams on Gettin Educated

The drinking age in those days was 18, and the entire compensation package for the managers of The Coffee House was free beer. That goes a long way toward explaining why the accounting system consisted of seven students trying to remember where all the money went. I thought we could do better.

Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert has an interesting article up containing the following advice points:

Combine Skills. The first thing you should learn in a course on entrepreneurship is how to make yourself valuable. It’s unlikely that any average student can develop a world-class skill in one particular area. But it’s easy to learn how to do several different things fairly well. I succeeded as a cartoonist with negligible art talent, some basic writing skills, an ordinary sense of humor and a bit of experience in the business world. The “Dilbert” comic is a combination of all four skills. The world has plenty of better artists, smarter writers, funnier humorists and more experienced business people. The rare part is that each of those modest skills is collected in one person. That’s how value is created.

Fail Forward. If you’re taking risks, and you probably should, you can find yourself failing 90% of the time. The trick is to get paid while you’re doing the failing and to use the experience to gain skills that will be useful later. I failed at my first career in banking. I failed at my second career with the phone company. But you’d be surprised at how many of the skills I learned in those careers can be applied to almost any field, including cartooning. Students should be taught that failure is a process, not an obstacle.

Find the Action. In my senior year of college I asked my adviser how I should pursue my goal of being a banker. He told me to figure out where the most innovation in banking was happening and to move there. And so I did. Banking didn’t work out for me, but the advice still holds: Move to where the action is. Distance is your enemy.

Read the other 4 and the rest of the article here: How to get a real education

Book of Mormon Mocks Wicked

I’ve long been keeping a horrible secret that I have to reveal now for this post: I like the musical Wicked. I’ve never seen it live cuz when it was playing in LA in 2007 I didn’t dare reveal to anyone that I wanted to see it so I never did, but I did find a pirated home video of the full play on Google Video (it’s been removed but there’s one here too if you’re interested) – anyway – the point is that I know of the song Defying Gravity and recognized the parody when I heard this track from The Book of Mormon that satirizes the silliness of the “we’re a team! but I’m the star…” premise. Listen for yourself:

Defying Gravity – Wicked

You and Me (But Mostly Me) – The Book of Mormon

Garofalo still embarrassing me with childish accusations

I can’t help but like Janeane Garofalo even though she can’t help but make irresponsible and unsupported allegations of bigotry against people she disagree’s with. The day the Tea Party began, Janeane jumped on the talking point that its all about racism, which i’m totally down with if one can defend it but… she hasn’t.

I sympathize with her conflict of wanting to be loved by everyone but not shying away from what you believe in even though you know it will cause more people to possibly unjustifiably dislike you. I wish she wouldn’t whine about being “punished” over calling people racist for no good reason. Due to my desperate want to justify my irrational positive attitude toward her, I have been searching for an explanation of wtf she’s talking about. Especially since I dont care about the Tea Party, so if she has a good example of why it’s a racist movement then I’ll me all too happy to throw them under the bus and run back and forth all over them with ridicule. Except she appears to have nothing… On Real Time with Bill Maher (where she also agreed with me that Anthony Weiner should still run for Mayor – though I think he should wait an election cycle before his comeback), on Mark Marons podcast and here on Keith Olbermanns show: they’re racist cuz they’re racist and it’s obvious and she’s just calling it like it is and you’re a jerk if you say boo about it. ug… The only example I’ve ever heard her give was that there was a tea party sign that said something along the lines of “What you talkin bout Willis?” from Diff’rent Strokes. I had no idea that Diff’rent Strokes was a racist show and Garofalo did not explain why that one silly sign was actually an example of racial hatred that tarred the nationwide movement for smaller government.

In the clip below, I share a similar conflict to hers of wanting to be loved but am compelled to speak truth – except it’s that I want TO love [her] but am compelled to point out how colossally retarded what she’s saying is.

As her and Keith have a friendly discussion on exactly how evil the Tea Party is, she actually says that her answer to “what makes you think the Tea Party is racist?” is “what makes you think it isn’t?”…. let that sink in a little…

Before that she makes a legit point that there is racism all over the world, and there is no reason to think it would go away under a black President. but then… she just… this is too painful to go on. I feel like I’m beating up a really adorable 9 year old by picking apart just how unintelligent these comments are, so just watch the video courtesy of the Daily Caller and make your own conclusions on the rest while I go watch old 90s footage of her and cry.

Well, just ONE more comment, because it was at least posed as an actual question even though she meant its argumentative proof (which Olbermann snarkily agrees with): the Tea Party started under Bush in response to his big government spending and bailouts, so their first protest of the guy who was elected by saying he would do more of that is literally the most predictable thing you could have expected form them. C’mon dude. First tell the truth, THEN give your opinion. Protesting someone you disagree with isn’t de facto evidence that you’re a closet Klansmen.

Meet the Camera that puts everything in focus

At first it looks awesome…

But these are good points

Here’s the “how it works” page on Lytro’s website. If you want to experiment with the technology, try their one-click photo gallery. Just one question: As neat as this is, who’s going to shell out several hundred bucks for a standalone flex-focus camera? I remember dropping $500 in 2002 on a Canon Powershot with 4 megapixel resolution. Fast-forward nine years and I get a better image than that from my iPhone, with plenty of zoom features, filters, etc, available via apps in the iTunes store. Unless I’m a semi-serious photographer, why would I spend extra money on a separate camera that I have to lug around? And if I am a semi-serious photographer, why would I “cheat” by using after-the-fact focus instead of challenging myself to take the perfect shot in real time? There will be a market for this camera, I’m just … not sure who it’ll be.

They’ve got two obvious business strategies going forward, I think, and neither relies on semi-serious photogs. One: Miniaturize the technology to the point where it’s cell-phone ready and then sell it to Apple or Google or whoever. Having a feature like this in the iPhone to let you sharpen up shoddy pics would be lovely. Two: Surveillance. Isn’t that the most obvious application for this? How many times have you watched a true-crime show where the perp walks by a gas-station camera 25 feet away and the best they can do to get a description of him is magnify his face until it’s a pixelated blotch? Universal focus would be a very tasty treat for security agencies. There’s certainly a market for it. Chop chop, Lytro!

 

Bird Drones will hide in plain sight

Better take a second look at that hummingbird in your yard.

Developers at the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio have produced dozens of prototypes that would not look out of place in a James Bond movie, based on the flight mechanics of birds, moths and dragonflies.

The Pentagon has rapidly increased its use of drones in the past two years to gather intelligence and launch missiles from the skies over Pakistan and Afghanistan. Supporters claim they have weakened al-Qaeda and reduced the chances of US casualties.

Major Michael Anderson, a doctoral student at the base’s advanced navigation technology centre, who is developing wings based on those of the hawk moth, said: “It’s impressive what they can do compared to what our clumsy aircraft can do.”

Today’s drones, such as the Predator and Reaper, are the size of light aircraft and piloted by remote control.
The next generation will be autonomous, flying themselves and programmed to search out targets, nuclear weapons or even spot survivors of natural disasters.

Continue reading Bird Drones will hide in plain sight

Ebert clarifies Jackass drunk death Tweet

Commenting on the news that “Jackass” star Ryan Dunn and two others were killed in a car crash at 3AM, Roger Ebert tweeted the following yesterday afternoon:

“Friends don’t let jackasses drink and drive.”

Some were angry with the judgement call.

Today, Ebert backed off and somewhat apologized:

I don’t know what happened in this case, and I was probably too quick to tweet. That was unseemly. I do know that nobody has any business driving on a public highway at 110 mph, as some estimated — or fast enough, anyway, to leave a highway and fly through 40 yards of trees before crashing. That is especially true if the driver has had three shots and three beers. Two people were killed. What if the car had crashed into another car?

Something called “Hollywoodland” on Breitbarts Big Hollywood site disapproved of this (my guess is because Ebert is a big liberal and Big Hollywood is a Conservative outfit) first setting it up with “Before knowing for sure if alcohol contributed to the awful car crash…” and then posting the tweet and elaboration, going on to say:

There’s a time and place for this discussion. No doubt about that. But before stepping onto your sanctimonius soapbox, it’s a good idea to know the facts.

Blah blah. Eberts original tweet may have jumped to a (very logical) conclusion at a not-s0-tactful time, but his followup is crushingly valid. We’re all allowed to publicly comment our opinions on public news items concerning public people and everyone else is allowed to say it’s wrong or in bad taste or whatever they think, but factually, it’s difficult to argue with Ebert on this one.