Weird News Stories part2

[Raithe]

Scientists are beginning to figure out why Conservatives...are Conservative

 

 

 

You could be forgiven for not having browsed yet through the latest issue of the journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences. If you care about politics, though, you'll find a punchline therein that is pretty extraordinary.

 

Behavioral and Brain Sciences employs a rather unique practice called "Open Peer Commentary": An article of major significance is published, a large number of fellow scholars comment on it, and then the original author responds to all of them. The approach has many virtues, one of which being that it lets you see where a community of scholars and thinkers stand with respect to a controversial or provocative scientific idea. And in the latest issue of the journal, this process reveals the following conclusion: A large body of political scientists and political psychologists now concur that liberals and conservatives disagree about politics in part because they are different people at the level of personality, psychology, and even traits like physiology and genetics.

 

That's a big deal. It challenges everything that we thought we knew about politics—upending the idea that we get our beliefs solely from our upbringing, from our friends and families, from our personal economic interests, and calling into question the notion that in politics, we can really change (most of us, anyway).

 

The occasion of this revelation is a paper by John Hibbing of the University of Nebraska and his colleagues, arguing that political conservatives have a "negativity bias," meaning that they are physiologically more attuned to negative (threatening, disgusting) stimuli in their environments. (The paper can be read for free here.) In the process, Hibbing et al. marshal a large body of evidence, including their own experiments using eye trackers and other devices to measure the involuntary responses of political partisans to different types of images. One finding? That conservatives respond much more rapidly to threatening and aversive stimuli (for instance, images of "a very large spider on the face of a frightened person, a dazed individual with a bloody face, and an open wound with maggots in it," as one of their papers put it).

 

In other words, the conservative ideology, and especially one of its major facets—centered on a strong military, tough law enforcement, resistance to immigration, widespread availability of guns—would seem well tailored for an underlying, threat-oriented biology.

 

The authors go on to speculate that this ultimately reflects an evolutionary imperative. "One possibility," they write, "is that a strong negativity bias was extremely useful in the Pleistocene," when it would have been super-helpful in preventing you from getting killed. (The Pleistocene epoch lasted from roughly 2.5 million years ago until 12,000 years ago.)

 

Hibbing and his colleagues make an intriguing argument in their latest paper, but what's truly fascinating is what happened next. Twenty-six different scholars or groups of scholars then got an opportunity to tee off on the paper, firing off a variety of responses. But as Hibbing and colleagues note in their final reply, out of those responses, "22 or 23 accept the general idea" of a conservative negativity bias, and simply add commentary to aid in the process of "modifying it, expanding on it, specifying where it does and does not work," and so on. Only about three scholars or groups of scholars seem to reject the idea entirely.

 

That's pretty extraordinary, when you think about it. After all, one of the teams of commenters includes New York University social psychologist John Jost, who drew considerable political ire in 2003 when he and his colleagues published a synthesis of existing psychological studies on ideology, suggesting that conservatives are characterized by traits such as a need for certainty and an intolerance of ambiguity. Now, writing in Behavioral and Brain Sciences in response to Hibbing roughly a decade later, Jost and fellow scholars note that

 

There is by now evidence from a variety of laboratories around the world using a variety of methodological techniques leading to the virtually inescapable conclusion that the cognitive-motivational styles of leftists and rightists are quite different. This research consistently finds that conservatism is positively associated with heightened epistemic concerns for order, structure, closure, certainty, consistency, simplicity, and familiarity, as well as existential concerns such as perceptions of danger, sensitivity to threat, and death anxiety. [italics added]

Back in 2003, Jost and his team were blasted by Ann Coulter, George Will, and National Review for saying this; congressional Republicans began probing into their research grants; and they got lots of hate mail. But what's clear is that today, they've more or less triumphed. They won a field of converts to their view and sparked a wave of new research, including the work of Hibbing and his team.

 

Granted, there are still many issues yet to be worked out in the science of ideology. Most of the commentaries on the new Hibbing paper are focused on important but not-paradigm-shifting side issues, such as the question of how conservatives can have a higher negativity bias, and yet not have neurotic personalities. (Actually, if anything, the research suggests that liberals may be the more neurotic bunch.) Indeed, conservatives tend to have a high degree of happiness and life satisfaction. But Hibbing and colleagues find no contradiction here. Instead, they paraphrase two other scholarly commentators (Matt Motyl of the University of Virginia and Ravi Iyer of the University of Southern California), who note that "successfully monitoring and attending negative features of the environment, as conservatives tend to do, may be just the sort of tractable task…that is more likely to lead to a fulfilling and happy life than is a constant search for new experience after new experience."

 

All of this matters, of course, because we still operate in politics and in media as if minds can be changed by the best honed arguments, the most compelling facts. And yet if our political opponents are simply perceiving the world differently, that idea starts to crumble. Out of the rubble just might arise a better way of acting in politics that leads to less dysfunction and less gridlock…thanks to science.

 

[Keyrock]

Nothing weird about this, but I didn't want to start a separate thread just for this.  Here's Kacy Katanzaro's EPIC American Ninja Warrior semi-final run:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfZFuw7a13E#t=14

 

I still can't believe she got past the Salmon Ladder (and didn't completely burn her arms out in the process).  She's got some INSANE grip strength.  That would be amazing if she wound up making it to Sasuke.

[Raithe]

Just for the joys of science..

 

Here's what happens when you actually have snakes on a plane... that's inducing microgravity

 

 

 

In honor of World Snake Day, which is today, here's what happens when you put a bunch of snakes on a plane...for science.

Most animals perceive the weightlessness of microgravity as if they were falling upside down. If you drop a cat from a great height, for example, it will roll over to attempt to land on its feet. This is called the "righting response." In microgravity, this leads to repeated rolling-over.

Scientists have interpreted the repeated rolling-over as a repetitive righting response, since the animal never gets any feedback that the action was successfully executed. This behavioral pattern is common and has been observed for various mammals, frogs, and turtles in microgravity.

 

But other herptiles (reptiles and amphibians) have very different responses to microgravity. Some snakes aggressively attack their own bodies; caecilians (which resemble snakes, but are amphibians) tend to become immobile and lose muscle tension; certain tree-frogs engage in diving behaviors.

That tree frogs think that they're diving makes a great deal of sense. Caecilians may become limp simply because these animals, which live out their lives in the ground like earthworms, never have the possibility of falling, and thus never develop strong righting responses.

 

But why would snakes attack their own bodies? That's where things get really interesting. Could it be that the self-directed aggression was the result of a loss of proprioception? Perhaps in microgravity, a snake can't recognize its own body as part of its own self.

 

Expand

 

In this study, the researchers loaded a bunch of snakes onto a Vomit Comet. These are planes that fly in parabolas: as the plane moves over the top of the curve, everything inside is temporarily weightless. At the bottom of the curve, it the pull of gravity actually feels a bit stronger.

 

Here's a video of one snake, Elaphe obsoleta, in microgravity. In the first parabola, the snake eventually knotted its tail and ceased all other body movements. In the second parabola the snake knotted its whole body and once again ceased moving while in microgravity. This posture was held through the next parabola and in the intervening time between the parabolas.

 

http://youtu.be/e5sg0dHqW-Q

 

While the researchers didn't observe the self-attack behaviors seen previously, the knotting behavior that they did observe in many of their snakes still reflects a basic loss of proprioception. When snakes become stressed out, they sometimes bunch together in a group in order to relax. Which, in a way, is exactly what that airborne snake did in microgravity.

In the absence of gravity, it appears as if snakes have a difficulty distinguishing self from non-self. The snake managed to relax, but only because it didn't realize that it was working to relax its own self! At least, that's the hypothesis.

 

The authors say that given the variation seen among the various species that have been subjected to weightlessness, "one must be cautious in selecting species as model organisms for orbital space flight experiments. Clearly, not all animals react the same to microgravity even when they have similar morphology, ecology, and evolutionary history."

 

 

 

[Raithe]

Also, just for the weirdness factor of all these news articles doing the "it's a fake, it's true, what happened? wtf knows?"

 

Telegraph - Scientists baffled by appearance of giant crater in Siberia

 

 

 

It is a barren landscape so remote that even the locals call it "the end of the world." Now the bleak tundra of Russia's remote Yamal peninsula has been scarred by a vast crater that has left scientists baffled and internet users looking for extra terrestrial explanations.

Discovered by helicopter pilots who post video footage of their find in the remote Yamal peninsula on Youtube, the the scar in the otherwise barren tundra resembles a crater caused by a large explosion.

 

At 50 to 80 meters across, the hole would be large enough to land several of the Mi-8 transport helicopters flown by the pilots who found it.

Surrounded by fresh earth apparently scattered by a blast, the crater's floor is an ominous pitch black.

The "hole at the end of the world" has prompted Russian internet users to suggest explanations ranging from a vast meteor impact to a gas explosion.

But experts say no meteor large enough to have caused such an impact would have gone unnoticed by the oil workers or indigenous Nenets reindeer herders who call the barren peninsula home.

 

Others have denounced the video as a pure hoax.

The true explanation is likely much more mundane.

 

Mounds often form beneath the tundra in summer as the pressure of meltwater from the thawing solid builds up beneath the surface.

When the internal pressure becomes too much, these mounds can erupt in dramatic explosions sending earth and debris a considerable distance.

The Yamal peninsula in Russia's far north is so remote that the name means "the end of the world" in the indigenous Nenets language.

The area contains vast oil and gas fields and is at the centre of Vladimir Putin's drive to develop Russia's Arctic energy reserves.

 

http://youtu.be/2kMs05VaOfE

Edited July 16, 2014 by Raithe

[Gfted1]

13 Inventions To Remind You That The Future Is NOW.

[Guest Slinky]

13 Inventions To Remind You That The Future Is NOW.

5. The future of gaming

 

Future of gaming my ass, modern games have felt like that for a good while now. Future really is now in that one.

 

But that arm cast is a welcome change!

[Keyrock]

 

13 Inventions To Remind You That The Future Is NOW.

5. The future of gaming

 

Future of gaming my ass, modern games have felt like that for a good while now. Future really is now in that one.

 

But that arm cast is a welcome change!

 

I, for one, welcome our new sentient trash can overlords.

[Guest Slinky]

In Soviet Russia the trash can throws you in the.. eh.. trash can? Out of one?

[Lexx]

I want this arm thingy so hard.

[Gfted1]

I thought that language translation app that works in real time was pretty cool.

[ShadySands]

Man Burns Down House Trying To Kill Spider With Homemade Flamethrower

He's just an ordinary guy, burning down the house.

 

Fire officials said a West Seattle man on a quixotic quest to rid his home of a vile spider ended up torching his abode on Tuesday evening. The man told firefighters that he saw a spider in his laundry room and decided the best way to take care of it was with a lighter and a can of spray paint. He set his wall on fire, then the blaze quickly spread.

 

The building, which is a rental home, will cost roughly $40,000 to repair... It will cost another $20,000 to repair or replace the contents of the home.The Red Cross is finding temporary housing for the man and a woman who lived with him.

 

This isn't the first incident involving spiders, open flames and incredibly poor judgment. Back in June, a Kansas woman set fire to her house in pursuit of a wily arachnid.She told authorities that she used a lighter to ignite some towels in the hopes of killing a spider. In 2012, a California man set fire to his home while attempting to clear cobwebs with a blowtorch.

 

I think he responded with appropriate force

Edited July 18, 2014 by ShadySands

[Keyrock]

Man Burns Down House Trying To Kill Spider With Homemade Flamethrower

He's just an ordinary guy, burning down the house.

 

Fire officials said a West Seattle man on a quixotic quest to rid his home of a vile spider ended up torching his abode on Tuesday evening. The man told firefighters that he saw a spider in his laundry room and decided the best way to take care of it was with a lighter and a can of spray paint. He set his wall on fire, then the blaze quickly spread.

 

The building, which is a rental home, will cost roughly $40,000 to repair... It will cost another $20,000 to repair or replace the contents of the home.The Red Cross is finding temporary housing for the man and a woman who lived with him.

 

This isn't the first incident involving spiders, open flames and incredibly poor judgment. Back in June, a Kansas woman set fire to her house in pursuit of a wily arachnid.She told authorities that she used a lighter to ignite some towels in the hopes of killing a spider. In 2012, a California man set fire to his home while attempting to clear cobwebs with a blowtorch.

 

I think he responded with appropriate force

And here I have been capturing the spiders and taking them outside unharmed.  I guess I have been doing it wrong the whole time.

[ShadySands]

I think it depends on how ugly the spider is. The more hideous the hellspawn the more destruction is needed to purge its taint. A daddy longlegs or cute little jumping spider can be spared and escorted to the edge of the kingdom and banished but some kind of wolf spider with a million little babies on its back requires much more drastic measures.

[Valsuelm]

 

And here I have been capturing the spiders and taking them outside unharmed.  I guess I have been doing it wrong the whole time.

 

 

I used to do that. Until I woke up one morning with a number of bites, that turned out to be highly poisonous that could have killed me. Now I kill most of them on sight. Squashing works quite well though, a flamethrower is a bit excessive.

[Lexx]

Should have used napalm, imo.

[Enoch]

Tree Planted in Memory of George Harrison Killed by Beetles

[Gfted1]

Guy builds biggest fart machine ever to fart at France with it.

[Mor]

lol, what an ass, although the world would have been a sad place without people like that to lighten up the mood day.

 

I can't but wonder what does he do for a living that he can afford such projects?!

[Raithe]

Heh, and in the non-surprise...

 

 

BBC News - New Broadband Users Shun Porn Filter

 

 

 

The vast majority of new broadband customers in the UK are opting out of "child friendly" filters when prompted to install them by service providers.

The industry watchdog Ofcom found fewer than one in seven households installed the feature, which is offered by BT, Sky, TalkTalk and Virgin Media.

The filters block pornographic websites, as well as pages promoting self-harm or drug taking.

The default option was implemented at the behest of the UK government.

 

In July 2013, Prime Minister David Cameron announced the major UK internet service providers (ISPs) had agreed to offer "unavoidable choice" parental control filters, which block legal pornography and other adult subjects "by default".

 

New subscribers are offered the filter at the point of sign-up, and must actively choose to disable the parental control service.

However, the Ofcom report found users had overwhelmingly opted-out of the filter.

 

Of the four main ISPs, all of whom now offer a filter at the point of sign-up, TalkTalk was the only company to persuade more than 10% of people to subscribe.

The percentage of customers taking up the option for each service provider are as follows:

 

• Virgin Media - 4%
• BT - 5%
• Sky - 8%
• TalkTalk - 36%

All new subscribers to the ISPs were offered the "unavoidable choice" option, with the exception of Virgin Media, which only presented the feature to 35% of customers.

While BT and Sky launched filter services towards the end of 2013, TalkTalk's HomeSafe option has been in place since May 2011.

Virgin Media launched its filter, Web Safe, in February 2014, past the deadline set by the UK government.

 

Virgin shortfall

 

The report also found that around 65% of new Virgin Media customers were not being offered the choice of family-friendly network level filtering, "primarily as a result of actions taken by installation engineers".

 

"The majority of new Virgin Media installations involve an engineer visit. Virgin Media believes that in many cases the engineer runs the broadband activation process and bypasses or ignores the filtering choice," Ofcom said.

 

"It has recognised that this is a failure in process and indicated it is taking steps to address this gap."

 

Tom Mockridge, Virgin Media's chief executive, said: "Ofcom's report clearly highlighted where Virgin Media has fallen short in meeting our original commitments.

"We take our responsibility to help families stay safe online very seriously and have taken immediate action to improve how we meet our commitments to government."

 

 

Edited July 23, 2014 by Raithe

[Malcador]

Outlook grim for orbiting Russian zero-G sex geckos

Edited July 25, 2014 by Malcador

[Malcador]

First Ebola victim in Sierra Leone capital on the run

[ShadySands]

 

 

Jesse Ventura in court to fight claims made by ‘America’s deadliest sniper’

 

I understand wanting to clear your name but I don't see what he hopes to accomplish since the guy who made the claims is dead

As always greed? Its a best-selling book, if he wins he can collect a pay check... That or those alleged remarks closed doors for him, which he needs to be open.

 

As I understand it, he filed the lawsuit while Kyle was still alive; death doesn't stop a lawsuit, it just means a loss would effect the estate.

 

 

And he won

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2014/07/30/jesse-ventura-vs-chris-kyle-a-case-where-no-one-won/

 

Edit - Question for the more legal minded among us. Can he refuse to collect the settlement or give it back or do something so that the estate keeps it?

Edited July 31, 2014 by ShadySands

[kirottu]

First Ebola victim in Sierra Leone capital on the run

 

That's grim, really really grim.

[Valsuelm]

 

 

 

Jesse Ventura in court to fight claims made by ‘America’s deadliest sniper’

 

I understand wanting to clear your name but I don't see what he hopes to accomplish since the guy who made the claims is dead

As always greed? Its a best-selling book, if he wins he can collect a pay check... That or those alleged remarks closed doors for him, which he needs to be open.

 

As I understand it, he filed the lawsuit while Kyle was still alive; death doesn't stop a lawsuit, it just means a loss would effect the estate.

 

 

And he won

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2014/07/30/jesse-ventura-vs-chris-kyle-a-case-where-no-one-won/

 

Edit - Question for the more legal minded among us. Can he refuse to collect the settlement or give it back or do something so that the estate keeps it?

 

He can choose to do with the settlement money whatever he wishes, just like any other sum of money he might have. It's very unlikely he would not collect, as he has bills to pay.

[Monte Carlo]

Regarding spiders. I live in England, a country with relatively few dangerous critters (save parking attendants, lawyers and politicians). So spiders here kill all the useless and annoying bugs in the garden. So I am a bit of a fan and never harm them, even the big, ugly ones.