Wacky, but true, news stories

The Science Files

(Disclaimer: All of these stories have been taken from various news sources on the internet. If one of them is your story and you take offense to my comments, I apologize. It's all done in humor.)

Ready….set….stroke!

Masturbating Lowers Prostate Cancer Risk (Woohoo....one less cancer to worry about for me!)
July 16, 2003
LONDON (Reuters) - Frequent masturbation, particularly in the 20s, helps prevent prostate cancer later in life, according to new research. (Let's see....in my 20's....multiply by 10 years....I should be 100% cured.)
Australian scientists have shown that the more men masturbate between the ages of 20 and 50, the less likely they are to develop the disease that kills more than half a million men each year. (Sweet! I have a few more years to work on kicking that cancer! Go cancer! It's your birthday!)
They suspect that frequent ejaculation has a protective effect against the cancer because it prevents dangerous carcinogens from building up in the gland. (Hehe...he said gland.)
"The more you flush the ducts out (A plumbing reference. Never thought I'd see that in a masturbation story.), the less there is to hang around and damage the cells that line them," Graham Giles, of the Cancer Council Victoria in Melbourne, told New Scientist magazine on Wednesday.
In a survey of 1,079 prostate cancer patients and 1,259 healthy men, Giles and his team discovered that men who ejaculated more than five times a week in their 20s were a third less likely to develop an aggressive form of the disease. (Whoa....five times a week!?!? Hold on need to recheck my math......nope still good.)
The findings contradict previous studies which suggested that having a variety of partners or frequent sexual activity could increase the risk of prostate cancer by 40 percent. (Well those scientists are just wrong! Wrong I tell you!)
But Giles said the earlier research concentrated on intercourse, whereas his study focused on masturbation. (You tell him Giles!) Infections caused by sexual activity could account for the different findings. (Ewwww.)
"Men have many ways of using their prostate which don't involve women or other men," he added. (Ya. I use mine to play tennis with me. It's got one killer serve.)

Double your pleasure, Double your fun...

Brewer Hopes to Give Liquor More Bite (Vampire teeth on the bottle opening?)

January 14, 2002
SEOUL - A South Korean brewer has come up with an alternative way for people to enjoy their favorite tipple -- ''chewable liquor.'' (New from Wrigley's Chewing Gum Company,  Wrigley's Peppermint Schnapps. )
Kooksoondang (The operative word there being Kook.) Brewery Co. said Friday it had developed a gelatin form (Jello shots all around!) of its popular Paeksaejoo rice wine, a mild version of South Korea's fiery soju liquor.
``We were looking for new ways to consume traditional liquor,'' a company spokesman told Reuters. (And why would we need more ways to consume liquor? Don't we have enough ways as it is?)
``But so far, we don't have concrete plans to market the product and consumer surveys are under study,'' he said. ("Would you like to try some of our new liquor flavored chewing gum? This is Big Jack Daniels Red.")
South Korea and Japan are co-hosting this year's soccer World Cup in May. (Huh? What the hell does this have to do with anything?) The company said it planned to take a decision on the new product before the end of January.

It's a stinker

Anti-fart cushion is a breath of fresh air
December 13, 2001
A cushion which muffles farts and stops them smelling is on sale in the US. (You have got to be kidding me!)
The gas-absorbing cushion contains a filter which lasts six months if used by a woman, but only three if used by a man. (I guess men's farts do stink more!! I wonder what the fart to replacement ratio is?)
The husband-and-wife inventing team tested it by sitting down to a sausage and beans dinner. (Like we needed to know that!)
Co-creator Jim Huza, from Greenville, North Carolina, says the GasBGon is on sale through his website for around £15. (Ok who has a flatulence problem bad enough to purchase a stupid pillow?)
It comes in a variety of eye-catching designs including Musical Solo, Silent but Deadly and The Winner's Circle. (Eye-catching designs? That's not what it's suppose to catch!)
Huza, an engineer, says the idea was originally a fictitious project his wife Sharron came up with for her marketing class but he turned it into reality. (Oh see!! He's trying to blame the wife!!)
He claims the cushion can absorb almost everything a fart can throw at it (How about a big old turd? Sorry...how rude of me.) : "It incorporates a sound dampening element (Hehe.) followed by a replaceable activated carbon material with an equivalent surface area to that of a football field." (In layman's terms: It's got a bunch of stuff with some other stuff that, like, keeps it from stinkin'.)
Sharron added: "The GasBGon cushion applies for all situations in which you would rather be safe than sorry." (Now your significant other can sit on the couch, fart and still enjoy the game without all that tasteless fart humor. We're all saved! I wonder when the dog cushion will be available?)

Great studies of the 21st Century

Getting to grips with jam jar lid poser
December 12, 2001
Scientists claim they have finally solved the problem of how to wrestle the lid off a jam jar. (Well thank the lord! It's about damn time.)
After a lengthy trial (Lengthy?), researchers in the Netherlands have published their solution - don't screw the lid on too tightly in the first place. (Really? I would have never thought of that. So glad you wasted the time to come to this most shocking of conclusions.)
A team from Delft University of Technology enlisted 750 volunteers to open jars in an effort to crack the problem. (How much where these volunteers paid? Or did they get to keep what was in the jar once they opened it?)
They discovered that the ideal tightness was a torque of 2 newton-metres (And we all know that each and every one of us has a 2 newton-metres torque wrench in our kitchens.) - tight enough that the seal would not break prematurely, but loose enough for most people to take off the lid.
The team now hopes manufacturers will use the data to produce easy-to-open jars. (Well that would be great. Then I can get at my pickled pig's feet so much faster.)

All in the name of science

Someone's getting turned on for science ("Oh yeah. Tell me the theory of relativity again. That's it. That's it. Slower now.")

November 30, 2001

She sits in the chair with the television just a few feet away. Her left hand is free; her right hand holds a lever that can be forced forward, like the throttle on a motorboat. A probe about four inches long is sitting in her vagina (Say what!!!), attached to a clear cord that dangles between her legs like a plumber's snake. (Umm...I have so many jokes to put here I can't pick just the right one. I think I'll just let that one slide.)

The screen flicks on. The experiment has begun. (Ok let's review. You are sitting in a chair with a four inch probe stuck up your vagina. Sounds like a party to me!)

The first clip lasts a few minutes. To start, it's a man and woman having sex. (This is getting better and better, isn't it.) As the viewer gets turned on, she pushes down on the lever. (Oh yeah. Push the lever, baby.) The tampon-shaped probe between her legs shines a light, and then measures how much of it is reflected back. (Huh? Ok now I'm a bit confused.) As she gets excited, the blood starts to pulse. The dark fluid flows in and the vaginal photo-plethysmograph picks up less and less light. (Photo-plethawhatsit?)

The first clip ends. Landscape scenes breeze by on the screen. The mind is refreshed. (NO, NO, NO. GO BACK TO THE CLIP. GO BACK TO THE CLIP!!!)

Then, more porn. (HELLO!)

Before she's done, the subject has watched video clips of penetrative and oral sex, performed by both a man and a woman, then a woman and a woman. (How does one get in on these "experiments"? Of course disregarding the fact that I don't have a vagina.)

Penetrative sex performed by two women? (Yes, please.)

"Dildo," (Excuse me? What did you just call me?) Prof. Michael Bailey says. He and graduate student Meredith Chivers masterminded the test that is designed to study if straight women react differently to straight porn and lesbian porn. (You wasted time on that? That's what this experiment is about? Oh brother!) The experiment was performed on a sample of 29 female Northwestern students in a Cresap lab. (Who were gullible enough to allow us to shove a four inch probe in their vagina.) Bailey and Chivers hope to show whether a woman's sexual orientation is reflected by her response to different displays of eroticism. (I'm so confused.)

This is science at its steamiest. (Or dumbest. I still can't figure this out.)

And the results were interesting. No matter the pairing, the women reacted similarly. (Oh well that solves everything. Doesn't it? Right?)

The same was not true for the opposite sex. (Hmm...something for the guys too?)

Last spring, Bailey and Chivers were involved in a similar study that tested Chicago-area men for their reaction to straight and gay porn. (Oh jeez. This means they were allowed to continue this idiotic experiment.) The results were fairly definitive — straight men reacted to watching a man and a woman have sex; gay men reacted to watching two men have sex. Neither had much crossover.

But when Chicago-area women showed arousal to both stimuli, Bailey got interested. (Hehe. The GUY in this experiment got interested when the women starting getting aroused. Now that's a shock!) He and Chivers wanted to follow-up on the research by looking at a more homogenous community of women.

He didn't have to look too far beyond his lecture stand to find one.

They concluded that women attending NU fit a sharp average profile — young, heterosexual and sexually inexperienced. (Hello! College women. Inexperienced. What rock have you been living under?)

But gathering a sample of women willing to be monitored while watching skin flicks was not an easy task. ("Excuse me, Miss. Would you like to help me with an experiment? I just need to shove this four inch probe in your vagina..." "Get away from me you pervert!") First, he needed permission from the Instructors Review Board, a group that places ethical restrictions on research, to ask students to participate. (AND YET THEY LET HIM PROCEED!)

Regulations said he had to invite them to another classroom to talk about the study. (Let's talk about sex, baby. Let's talk about you and me...) There, he asked them to fill out a questionnaire about their willingness to participate. They would be paid $75, compared to the $25 to $30 dolled out to the Chicago women. Those that followed up on his inquiry and then answered his questions were accepted.

Chivers notes that these women reacted positively to the study.

"The women who did participate in the study found it very interesting and important research because so little is known about women's sexual arousal patterns," she said. (Uh huh. I'm sure that was the reason.)

Bailey knows sexual arousal isn't easily quantifiable. His assistants tried hard to find arousing video clips ("not too cheesy," Bailey said), but he knows that certain people might be more attracted to some actors than others.

"Hopefully, nobody was reminded of someone," Bailey said. (Hehe. Oh please.)

But no science is an exact science, and Bailey is pleased with his experiment. Without boasting, he said he looked forward to seeing how his study would be received by the public.

"I'm excited by the results, and I hope to see them published in a good journal." ("Not that one I get in the mail once a month offering me mail-order brides.")

The only way to go

Coroners warn of sex death in brothels (Why? Does it take them too long to get to the body with all the fine looking women getting in the way?)

September 4, 2001
Coroners in Germany are warning men of the dangers of dying from heart failure during sex in brothels. (Come on! You can't get that worked up over German women? Can you? Unless they all look like Gina Wild. Hubba hubba.)
Even young men are vulnerable to having a heart attack during sex sessions with prostitutes. (Damn! Just how good are German prostitutes that people are having heart attacks? And how much does a ticket to Germany cost?) The extra thrill from excitement and danger is potentially lethal. (So this applies to anything where danger and excitement mix? There goes my trip to that new Japanese Puffer fish restaurant.)
Researchers at the Hamburg University Institute of Coroners studied seven cases of 'Love Death' during brothel visits. (WHAT!!!!! DID YOU SAY SEVEN? SEVEN? I DIDN'T JUST HEAR SEVEN!!)
The study, published in Rechtsmedizin medical journal (Which by the way studied SEVEN cases so that makes it official and universal.), was prompted by the death of a man on his 21st birthday while getting undressed at a brothel. (The dude only made it to getting his clothes off before having a heart attack? Damn that had to suck!) The visit was a present from his friends. (Did they get a discount? Or a refund? And, why don't any of my friends get me a hooker? Lousy stinkin' friends.)
Coroners warn young men may be especially vulnerable if they have a heart condition but are not aware of it. ( "I don't think I can go to a prostitute. I might have a heart condition I'm not aware of and I might die." Jeez how stupid are you people?)
They say the risk of dying during sex is between five and 20 times as high for men as it is for women. (I think I like those odds. But exactly how do you come up with those figures? I guess you can't just run around asking people "Have you had sex recently? Did you feel as though you were about to die?".)
Sven Anders, a coroner from Hamburg said, "The exciting situation of a brothel visit, the hint of wild and forbidden relations with an unknown partner (Ummm...forbidden relations.) arouses great emotional and psychic stress in men and this can lead to sudden death." (So does going on a first date but I don't see you whipping out the survey sheets for that one. What is it that you have against these German brothels, Sven. Not able to get any?)
But Dr Anders said the numbers of sudden death cases could not be properly assessed because relatives and family doctors were reluctant to pass on the full details. (Damn! If I go like that I want the whole world to know. Hell, I want that shit on my tombstone "Here lies Larry. Died with a bottle of whiskey in one hand and the hottest looking set of hooters in the other, on the happiest day of his life.")
"There are many relatives who hide such a 'love death' out of shame. And there are general practitioners who would, out of sympathy, just diagnose sudden heart death." (Or it could be that you "think" these sudden unexplained deaths are due to "arousal overexertion" and don't bother finding out the real reasons. So don't bring your SEVEN case study bullshit to the media and expect me to hold it up as the gospel. M'kay.)

(Oh and if you didn't get the Puffer fish joke I'll explain. It's exciting to visit new places and Puffer fish can be deadly if not prepared correctly. So you could, theoretically, die while eating it. Pretty exciting, huh?)

Stunning research conclusions

Surprise! Researchers Find That Sexless = Sadness (REALLY! Well.....DUH!!!!)
August 30, 2001
NEW YORK - It might be the biggest breakthrough in sex research since the invention of the Pill. (Not!)
Two Georgia State University sociologists have come out with a study finding that people who aren't having sex, but want to, are frustrated and unhappy. (Why do idiots like this become sociologists?)
Nuns, priests, monks and others who choose abstinence aren't part of the Journal of Sex Research report, co-authored by GSU sociology professors Denise Donnelly and Elisabeth Burgess. (Were they doing this to find out what guys weren't having sex?) Instead, so-called "involuntary celibates" (Involuntary celibates?) are the study's focus, and were often found to be depressed (I'm not depressed. I'm working up to excited.), cranky (Cranky?!?! What the hell is he talking about?) and insecure. (Insecure? I'd comment on that but I'd probably have to watch my back later.)
The less-than-stunning conclusion, along with the less-than-solid sample they profiled (82 people (HA!! 82 people? Woohoo!), all found on the Internet (So a huge bunch of losers in the first place.)) have led some to ponder why they bothered. (You mean ALL of them haven't been wondering why they bothered?)
"I wonder why the authors thought this was an interesting question," mused Sally Satel, a staff psychiatrist at the Oasis Clinic in Washington, D.C. "They did not make a convincing case for undertaking it." (Much like a lot of other surveys conducted by so called "respected" scientists.)
Donnelly said she's heard similar criticism before: She and Burgess have been accused of wasting time and money on research whose conclusion seems ridiculously simple. But the project provided valuable insight into a common problem, she said - and only cost $5,000, which came from an internal university research grant. (Well that makes it all better then!! It was only $5,000. That's not so bad. It's not like it was being used for anything like Cancer research or Aids.)
"Some parts of the study are obvious, but some aren't," she said. "We knew we were going to find people who weren't absolutely ecstatic, but what we didn't know was how much it affects all aspects of their lives."
(Then you might have wanted to broaden the test subjects more. Perhaps expand on your extreme waste of $5,000.)
Researchers divided participants into three categories: virgins, singles (non-virgins who wanted an intimate relationship but didn't have one) and partnered celibates (those who were no longer having sex with their significant others). (How about "partnered virgin celibates"? Did you take them into consideration?)
Donnelly said most people who participated in the study reported depression, low self-esteem, poor body image and emotional paralysis at the thought of initiating a relationship. (And this is different from people who are already in a relationship in what way? You have nothing to compare against. Without comparison you have a bunch of random information that means nothing.)
"It snowballs - the longer one goes without a partner, the harder it is to find one," (The longer it takes me to smack you the madder I get.) she said. "It's important to do the study because sex is an important part of our lives. We don't often talk about it." (We don't talk about it because then some researcher comes along and shoves some lame ass survey down our throats and then draws up some cockamamie results from it.)
Donnelly and Burgess found that the "involuntary celibacy" problem is usually ignored, despite the fact that about 10 to 20 percent of the population falls into the category. (Are there drugs for "involuntary celibacy"? Are there special "doctors" you can pick up on a street....err I mean see at a hospital?)
"It's not stupid - it's me," said a middle-aged Russian woman identifying herself only as Tatiana. "I'm divorced and I don't have it. I need it, but I can't just go out there and get it." ($50 same as in town baby.)
Others who were asked what they thought of such research were more skeptical.
"It seems kind of silly," said Matthew Kelly, 21, a Rhode Island college senior. "It's a really hard thing to do a scientific study on." (Nice of you to use the words silly and hard in reference to a sex survey.)
The conclusion might be a given, but the GSU authors aren't naive. After all, the topic of sex never fails to attract attention.
"It's obvious: A lot of people who don't have sex are grouchy," (What? What rock are you living under?) said Jerrozz Brooks, 22, a New York City cook. "But I would want to read about it."
Still, is titillating content a good reason to research something we already know - that lack of sex is a downer?
"A lot of people would say 'Duh!' (Hey! I said that. Are you stealing my stuff now?) but this information has potential usefulness," said Dr. J. Michael Faragher, a sex and addiction expert at Metropolitan State College of Denver. "There is stupid, funny research that goes on, but within obvious results there are sometimes intriguing trends we didn't know about before." (Like researchers are dumb?)
Satel, for her part, was unimpressed, but took heart in the fact that the project came cheap.
"It would be a shame to spend significant tax dollars on an uninformative study such as this," she said. "It doesn't tell you a lot. It's really a non-finding because the methodology is so weak." (Three cheers for lame research!!)

Scientific advances we can do without

My toilet will email you the details (Excuse me?)
July 12, 2001
LONDON - For all those who thought the Internet was no use to anyone, we now have the talking e-toilet that can diagnose medical conditions. ("I am pleased to accept your waste. I see you have hemorrhoids. Please apply cream generously and sit on me in the morning. Thank you and have a healthy day.")
Privately-held Twyford Bathrooms of Cheshire, England, reports that its Versatile Interactive Pan (VIP) makes the most of hormone and nutrient detectors and e-mail. It can also talk. (Who the hell wants a talking toilet?)
It will tell the user verbally, or their doctor by email, if it detects pregnancy or diabetes for example, the company said. (I just can't imagine my doctor receiving an email from a toilet. What would it say? "Dear Dr. Stevens, Johnny had an excellent crap this morning. He seemed quite pleased and everything came out alright. I will email you later if anything should go badly. Sincerely, Johnny's Toilet.") It uses voice recognition technology to distinguish between different people. ("Good morning Mr. Bond. Will that be one lump or two?")
Twyford added that the technology wasn't new, but putting the components together in something like a toilet was a new twist. (An insane twist, but a twist none the less.)

Loofah anyone?

Shower curtain study unravels sticky problem (Shower curtains? It's nice to see we aren't using our precious time on something we all could care less about.)
July 10, 2001
A scientific study has solved the mystery of why the curtain always sticks to your legs when you have a shower. (We needed a scientific study to answer this question? Did anyone really think it was a mystery?)
It says the air pressure inside the shower drops because of the speed of the water and so the higher air pressure outside billows the curtain in. (And how long did it take you to reach this conclusion? A cold shower perhaps?)
It is the same effect which lifts an aircraft wing when air rushes over the top faster than it passes below.
David Schmidt, from the University of Massachusetts, used computer software to divide the shower into 50,000 tiny sections and worked out what was happening in each. (You wasted computer time on this? And couldn't you have done this with just 4 or 5 sections? Why the hell did you need 50,000?)
He found the overall pressure differences create a tiny whirlwind inside the shower, which he says bathers can see for themselves. ("Take off all your clothes and I'll show you my tiny whirlwind.")
He says a vortex can be seen if you "stand outside the shower, stick your head in and blow in smoke". (So why did you waste my time with your worthless piece of crap study?)

Size does matter!

Penises measured to produce perfect condom
July 7, 2001
RED BANK, NJ - LifeStyles Condoms has conducted research into the average length and circumference of the erect penis during Spring Break in Cancun (Apparently there's a lot of them during that time.) and found that the average penis length is 5.877 inches, with the majority ranging between 5.5 inches and 6.3 inches. The average girth is 4.972 inches, with the majority ranging between 4.7 inches and 5.1 inches. (I wonder how the measurement process was done? And how drunk they had to be first? Not only the participants but the testers.)
From March 11 to 17, 2001 a total 401 males over the age of 18 were measured, one at a time (Well that's good to know. I can just hear the "No measure me. I'm bigger." arguments arising from that group of guys.) (Hehe. I said arising.), by qualified medical staff (protected by Ansell Medi-Touch gloves) (Did they really need to add the gloves part? They are 'qualified' medical staff after all. Or was that just a plug for the Ansell Medi-Touch glove company? "Ansell Medi-Touch gloves. Used exclusively by doctors and nurses around the country testing penile size.") in private tents at the Dady Rock nightclub in Cancun, Mexico.
Of the 401 men, 300 were able to gain an erection for measurement - a success rate of only 75%. (The other 101 thought they were about to score.)
The LifeStyles Condoms Penis Size Survey was designed to create a better condom, to ensure that they are sized properly, comfortable and won't slip. ("Condom garter belts. Safe and secure in the knowledge." It's a new ad campaign.)
The following strict criteria, was enforced by a doctor and a team of four nurses, who consistently attended each of the seven nights of this penis size research. (Seven nights? Looking at erect penises? I bet when those nurses got home if they saw just one more erect penis they'd scream. Besides, how many ladies would have liked to have been one of the nurses? Come on raise your hand. How humiliating would that have to be? I bet they could have gotten a few 'volunteers' from the crowd to help out. Oh course that might have gotten out of hand.) (Get it. Oh where's that guy with the drum riff. Ba dump bump.)
Measuring of Length was from the point at the base of the erect penis where the top of the penile shaft meets the pubic area to the tip of the glans ("head"). For uncircumcised men the foreskin was retracted.
Measuring of Girth was at mid-shaft around the circumference of the penis when the penis was erect. Failure to gain an effective erection for measurement disqualified the volunteer from being included in the data for the calculation of average erect penis length and girth. (What qualifies as an 'effective erection'? And who determined it failed? If it's up, it's effective in my opinion.)
The research was conducted at Dady Rock nightclub in Cancun, Mexico during Spring Break 2001. The majority of participants were U.S. college men but it was not limited to this group. (College guys taking part in an erection survey. Who'd a thunk it?) Volunteers were asked to enter a private area where they would gain an erection (Umm...alone?) and then call for the two qualified nurses to measure their erect penis. (Just that thought alone could do it.) To ensure the accuracy of the data, each erect penis was measured by two of the nurses. (To assure accuracy my ass!) A doctor supervised the nurses and all activity. (Phew. Well that makes it better. NOT!) Volunteers tended to be groups of friends, which helped ensure a wide range of penis sizes (big and small) and provide us with a more accurate average figure. ("Hey Joe. These chicks want to measure our erect penises." "Yeah?" "Yeah. Come on. We might get some later." "Yeah I'm in. This is going to be so cool.")
401 male volunteers of which, only 300 were "effective" male volunteers (75%), as 101 male volunteers (25%) could not gain an erection for measurement. (What a bunch of wusses. What the heck were they thinking about?) At 300 effective measurements, this study is twice the size of any previous study (Twice the size? That can happen when you're dealing with erections. Hehe) that uses medical staff to measure penis size. (Huh huh, they said staff.) This method is more accurate and reliable than studies where volunteers undertake self-measurement / reporting.

(And now for the information you've all been waiting for.) (Drum roll please.)

The average erect penis length was 5.877 inches (14.928cm). (Ba da bing!)
Standard deviation was 0.825 inches (2.096cm) with 54% of the effective sample measuring between 5.5 inches (14cm) and 6.3 inches (16cm).

The average erect penis girth was 4.972 inches (12.63cm). (Ta da!)
Standard deviation was 0.508 inches (1.29cm) or with 53.33% of the effective sample measuring between 4.725 inches (12cm) and 5.118 inches (13cm).
(Ladies, grab your loved one and see if they measure up!) (Hehe I said grab.)
There have been previous research studies on this subject, but they have all had shortcomings (A penis survey with shortcomings?) that produced unreliable data making the results doubtful, at best.

Survey Name, Av. Length, Av. Girth, Research flaws
Kinsey Institute for Sex Report, 6.2 inches, 4.8 inches, Self-measurement process. Limited to Caucasian males.
The-Penis.com, 6.4 inches, 5.0 inches, Self-measurement process, Anonymous via Internet.
Durex Internet Survey, 6.4 inches, 5.2 inches, Self-measurement process, Anonymous via Internet.
California U. (S.F), 5.1 inches, 4.9 inches, Only measured 60 men.
Brazilian Urologist, 5.7 inches, 4.7 inches, Only measured 150 men.

It is fair to say that in all cases, where medical staff has measured erect penis size, the average length has been below 6 inches and in every case where the surveys rely on self-measurement and voluntary reporting the average leaps over six inches. Interestingly average girth remains around 5 inches in all surveys. (Interesting. Isn't it? I can just see the "I don't think you got that right. Would you mind measuring it one more time for me? Oh yeah. That's it. Check the girth baby!")
Using the figure of 5.877 inches from the LifeStyles Condoms Penis Size Survey it appears that men on average exaggerate their penis length by a quarter to a half an inch when they are permitted to measure and report their own size. (Let's see...without exaggerating...carry the one...divide by two...Who really gives a rats ass?!?!?)

Planetary realignment instructions. Well, maybe not.

Scientists' answer to global warming: nudge the planet farther from Sun (Ok what the hell have they been smoking?)
June 10, 2001
Scientists have found an unusual way to prevent our planet overheating: move it to a cooler spot.
All you have to do is hurtle a few comets at Earth, and its orbit will be altered. (Sure let's just hurl a few comets at us.) Our world will then be sent spinning into a safer, colder part of the solar system. (Or possibly into a near by planet or moon.)
This startling idea of improving our interplanetary neighbourhood is the brainchild of a group of Nasa engineers and American astronomers who say their plan could add another six billion years to the useful lifetime of our planet - effectively doubling its working life. (And could possibly double the chances of us having no lives.)
'The technology is not at all far-fetched,' (Really? You don't think so?) said Dr Greg Laughlin, of the Nasa Ames Research Center in California. 'It involves the same techniques that people now suggest could be used to deflect asteroids or comets heading towards Earth. We don't need raw power to move Earth, we just require delicacy of planning and manoeuvring.' (And, apparently, a few crazy scientists.)
The plan put forward by Dr Laughlin, and his colleagues Don Korycansky and Fred Adams, involves carefully directing a comet or asteroid so that it sweeps close past our planet and transfers some of its gravitational energy to Earth. (How exactly do you 'direct' a comet? "Excuse me, Mr. Comet, would you mind changing your course to .2 light-years longitude by .56 light-years latitude. Thanks.")
'Earth's orbital speed would increase as a result and we would move to a higher orbit away from the Sun,' Laughlin said. (I can just see the amount of planet-wide havoc the new magnetic forces would have on our planet. There would be some sweet tidal waves.)
Engineers would then direct their comet so that it passed close to Jupiter or Saturn, where the reverse process would occur. It would pick up energy from one of these giant planets. (So we're screwing with their orbits as well? When is this madness going to stop?) Later its orbit would bring it back to Earth, and the process would be repeated. (So we can knock ourselves closer and closer to annihilation.)
In the short term, the plan provides an ideal solution to global warming, (The key words there being 'in the short term'.) although the team was actually concerned with a more drastic danger. The sun is destined to heat up in about a billion years and so 'seriously compromise' our biosphere - by frying us. ("Yes I'll have a Big Mac." "Would you like Frenchman Fries with that?" "No thanks. I'll stick with the Baked Californians.")
Hence the group's decision to try to save Earth. 'All you have to do is strap a chemical rocket to an asteroid or comet and fire it at just the right time,' added Laughlin. 'It is basic rocket science.' (Well there you have it. It does take a rocket scientist to come up with one whacked out idea. And how do you strap a rocket to a comet anyway?)
The plan has one or two worrying aspects, however. (Ok. Here we go. Wait for it....) For a start, space engineers would have to be very careful about how they directed their asteroid or comet towards Earth. The slightest miscalculation in orbit could fire it straight at Earth - with devastating consequences. (Oh that had to hurt! "Look up in the sky. It's a bird. It's a plane. No it's a giant comet with a rocket attached to it sent to destroy the earth.")
It is a point acknowledged by the group. ("Yeah we see your point and raise you an even dumber point.") 'The collision of a 100-kilometre diameter object with the Earth at cosmic velocity would sterilise the biosphere most effectively, at least to the level of bacteria,' they state in a paper in Astrophysics and Space Science. 'The danger cannot be overemphasised.' (Umm...you're worried about bacteria?)
There is also the vexed question of the Moon. (The Moon. Yes, yes. Let's not forget that tiny little item.) As the current issue of Scientific American points out, if Earth was pushed out of its current position it is 'most likely the Moon would be stripped away from Earth,' it states, radically upsetting out planet's climate. (I think they mean 'our planet's climate'.)
These criticisms are accepted by the scientists. ("We accept that. But we're scientists. We don't care what you think 'cuz we're like smart and stuff.") 'Our investigation has shown just how delicately Earth is poised within the solar system,' Laughlin admitted. 'Nevertheless, our work has practical implications. ("We better come up with some practical implications or we just wasted a bunch of peoples time.") Our calculations show that to get Earth to a safer, distant orbit, it would have to pass through unstable zones and would need careful nurturing and nudging. Any alien astronomers observing our solar system would know that something odd had occurred, and would realise an intelligent lifeform was responsible. (Alien astronomers? And if there were alien astronomers wouldn't they be thinking "What the hell were they thinking?")
'And the same goes for us. When we look at other solar systems, and detect planets around other suns - which we are now beginning to do - we may see that planet-moving has occurred. It will give us our first evidence of the handiwork of extraterrestrial beings.' (Some one pass me the bong these guys have been smoking. That has GOT to be some really good shit.)

Rinse, lather, repeat

Showering with Celebrities? (So many names....must...stop...thinking...about...it.)
May 18, 2001
TORONTO- Two out of three people in Canada's largest city would rather take a shower with a beautiful celebrity than with their partners, a survey taken in April and May reveals. (Well duh! Who wouldn't? Oh course I don't think it's just about the showering.)
But one in three respondents in Toronto, with more women in this category than men, would prefer a shower with their life partners than with the likes of Pamela Anderson, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Brad Pitt, or Russell Crowe. (I wouldn't want to shower with Pamela Anderson either. Only 2 words come to mind with that option: Eww! and Eww! Now Ms. Zeta-Jones on the other hand.)
``I'm not surprised,'' said lifestyles counselor Carol Wise, who analyzed the results of the survey of 360 people. (Aw crap! You're kidding right? 360 people? Gah! Your survey now means nothing. You are the weakest li...oops.)
``A shower is the ultimate definition of intimacy. (Umm...no it isn't. I thought actually doing it was the ultimate. Isn't it?) In a few blissful sudsy moments, a loving connection can be made (Awww that's so sweet.)
-- no words necessary,'' (I think the first words would be "What are you doing in my shower?", followed by "Oops. Looks like I dropped the soap. You mind getting that for me?") Wise said.
The survey, conducted by soapmaker Unilever Canada and Media Profile and released on Thursday, found 37 percent of women would prefer showering with their partners, while only 26 percent of men would.
A third of those surveyed said they sing while they lather. Most sung tune: ``Singing in the Rain''. (I usually hum a few bars of "Rubber Ducky" but that's just me.)

What the future holds

(I would like to state upfront that those of you who are smokers may like this article. More then likely you will not like my comments. You may wish to beat me about the head with blunt objects. I ask that you please do not do this. These are only my opinions. But I do hope that they will cause you to think about what the manufacturers of cigarettes will do to keep you addicted and continue to bring younger and younger people to their products. They won't stop doing it no matter what regulations we throw at them. They will only come up with new ways and new methods of getting around them. So enough foreword from me, let's proceed with the article.)

Sweets full of nicotine may hook children ("Yes. I'll have a pack of Menthol Extra Slim Lights gum and this soda.")

May 6, 2001
TOBACCO companies are to launch a mint sweet containing as much nicotine as a cigarette, prompting fears that it could tempt children. (So they are still targeting children with their products. It's just now they are going to hide it in candy. I thought there were regulations that had already been passed to avoid this? But then maybe this is what they needed to do to stay in business and bypass the regulations.)
The cigalett, sold in boxes of 20 for the price of a packet of cigarettes, has been developed in America for the booming market in smokers who face bans in the workplace, restaurants and other public areas. (Banned because of the health risks associated with the toxic fumes given off by them. But since most of their purchasing base continues to die off at alarming rates they needed to come up with new ways of reaching future hospital patients. What's next? Nicotine spinal drips for child birth?)
Unlike most other non-combustible tobacco products, the cigalett is not chewed or spat out, and has no bitter taste. (Oh well that's good news. There's nothing I hate more then the bitter taste of addictive nicotine in my mouth.)
It is not seen as an aid to stop smoking (Why would they want to do that?); gums such as Nicorette are chewed for around 20 minutes to provide about 1mg of nicotine, but within seconds the cigalett releases the amount of the drug that smokers crave. (Plus a little more to keep them addicted, most likely.)
"By allowing new tobacco products you are perpetuating the problem," said Amanda Sandford of Action on Smoking and Health, the anti-smoking pressure group. "You could also be encouraging children and young people to use a product containing nicotine." (Ah yes. Encouraging children to use their product. They haven't been doing that for ages. Have they Mr. Camel?)
Cigaletts, made mostly of crushed tobacco and sold under the name Ariva, will be tested this summer in America. (How about we not test them and say we did?) "We would hope to pursue sales in the UK," (Yeah why should just Americans die from it.) said Paul Perito, president of Star Scientific, developer of cigaletts. Star says it wants to stop selling cigarettes within five years. (Good. Stop selling them now. Save us 5 years. Don't come up with a new product.)
One of world's largest tobacco companies, the London-based British American Tobacco, is also backing a mint. Its US division, Brown & Williamson, has agreed with Star to sell cigaletts under its own name.
Ariva packaging says "When you can't smoke" and "Refreshing and satisfying". ("Until you keel over and die from emphysema or some form of cancer.") The company plans to include health warnings (As if these have helped people realize the dangers of regular "death sticks".) and to sell Ariva in a "child-resistant" bubble pack. ("Child resistant"? When is the last time a child couldn't open one of those? How about selling them in completely un-openable bottles? That way nobody can get into them.) The sale of tobacco products is banned to people under 18 in America and 16 in Britain. (Gee I wonder why?)
Although nicotine is addictive (Gee, Really?!?!), most damage to the body is caused by toxic chemicals formed when tobacco burns. (Most damage. Nice choice of words.) Scott Tomar (Is that pronounced like tumor?), an expert on smokeless tobacco and oral cancers, criticised Ariva, saying: "They're making a product with an unknown level of safety." (Hmm...didn't someone say the same thing when cigarettes were introduced? I wonder where these would be headed then?)
Tomar, an associate professor at the University of Florida College of Dentistry, added: "Since each Ariva pellet is about 60% tobacco, I would say it's probably going to pose a significant health risk." (Wait a second. It's not just a nicotine mint? It contains 60% tobacco as well?)
John Britton, professor of epidemiology at Nottingham City Hospital, wrote in last week's British Medical Journal that legislation was needed "to encourage the development of alternative products that can deliver uncontaminated nicotine at a dose and rate comparable with cigarettes in a way that is acceptable. (Like hell we need this legislation. How about legislation that would encourage these companies to stop killing people?)
"If, instead of nearly 13m addicted smokers [in Britain], we have 13m addicted to clean nicotine devices, so be it; the result could be 6m lives saved." (How is this possible? You still have 13 million people addicted to a drug that will eventually kill them. If your 6 million figure is coming as a result of less second hand smoke I say "Yipee.", but you're still slowly killing 13 million. But according to you that's acceptable.)

Survey says!

Scientists link tattoos to crime (How do those tattoos get away with all that crime?)
Apr 30, 2001
ADOLESCENTS with tattoos are much more likely than other teenagers to be involved with drugs, alcohol or even gang violence, an American study has disclosed. (And they are basing this on....?)
A tattoo provides a "visible cue" that a teenager might get involved in such behaviour (How is this a sign?), scientists at the University of Rochester in New York State said. The link, which emerged from a study of 6,072 people aged between 11 and 21 (Well at least they have a wider test group then the last survey I saw.) from across the US, remained after results were adjusted for socio-economic factors, gender, age and peer-group pressure. (What do you mean 'remaining'? So how many were left then? Did you just ask those with tattoos?)
Timothy Roberts, a pediatrician at the University of Rochester Children's Hospital who led the study, reported the results at the annual conference of the American Academy of Pediatrics in Baltimore, Maryland, yesterday.
"A tattoo is a sign that doctors, parents, teachers ought to be asking about the teenager's behaviour," (I wonder what questions they asked? And does a tattoo of Tinky Winky really mean someone might be more likely to do drugs?) he said. It would, however, be wrong to suggest that it increases the chances of irresponsible behaviour or to use it as a basis of discrimination, he added. (So you've just invalidated your own survey? Why they hell did you do it in the first place if you're going to say this? That's like playing football when you're 5 and getting tackled on the snap and saying "Do over. I wasn't ready.")
Tattooed teenagers were almost four times as likely as their peers to have had sex (Hmm... I need to get a tattoo.), 2.7 times as likely to be gang members (Well maybe not. But I do like the odds.), and about twice as likely to abuse drugs, alcohol or cigarettes, or to have taken part in a recent fight. ("That's a load of crap. And I'd beat the hell out of you but I'm in the middle of this bottle of Jack and I'm all out of cigs. Who took my LSD? Damn tattooed freaks, always taking my stash.") (Did you notice that the title of this article said 'Scientists' when in actuality it was one scientist? Unless the others didn't want to be associated with their screwed up survey.)

More reasons to watch TV

Survey: Sex Turning TV Into the 'Boob' Tube (Where? What shows? I haven't seen any yet.)
April 25, 2001
NEW YORK - TV is too trashy (Says who?) - that's the opinion of Americans (How many Americans?) who say they can't believe their eyes at the filth being peddled on television. (As to the filth peddled in the movies.)
Seventy-seven percent of adults polled in a recent Family Circle magazine survey (Oh yeah. Now there's a good group of people to poll.) say today's TV programming is overloaded with sex, sex and more sex. (And I wouldn't want it any other way.)
And they point to the sleaze-filled talk shows run by shockmeisters Howard Stern and Jerry Springer as the single most offensive offerings on the box. (Umm ok Jerry Springer isn't on the air anymore is he? And Howard Stern is the 'King of Getting Kicked Off the Air' so what's the problem?)
Those shows cater to an endless parade of low-rent guests that include porn stars, strippers, adulterers and fetishists of all sorts. (Most of which is an act. But the big question is why are Family Circle readers watching these shows? They seem to have a lot of information about them.)
The mag also reports that MTV and the HBO hit Sex and the City are considered the most offensive programming. (So it's really cable TV that they are mad at. Like I've said in previous stories, does anyone still watch MTV? Besides the idiots.)
MTV is jam-packed with sexually explicit videos (Jam-packed? MTV shows videos? When did this happen?), while Sex and the City features four single women who bed loads of men in search of the ultimate orgasm. (Are they filming anywhere close to me?)
Family Circle says its survey, published in the May 15 issue, proves that adults are sick of the trash TV execs have resorted to airing in their quest for better ratings. (I'm still waiting for the totals on the amount of people you surveyed. Until I see them your survey doesn't mean dick to me. In fact I just talked to some people who think your magazine is crap, therefore that proves adults are sick of your magazine and thing it should no longer be published.)
"[There is] a general public displeasure (And you've talked to all of them? Numbers please.) with the media's loosening standards when the subject is sex," said the mag's editor in chief, Susan Ungaro.
Viewers, especially women, were offended by the super-skimpy outfits some stars love to wear. (Is that purely because they are jealous? Or is it just because the stars are skinny? Maybe if you had a personal trainer like most stars do you might look that way too.)
Forty-five percent of women (Of how many women? You could have asked 2 people out of a group of 5 and gotten a 40%. Your survey means nothing at this point.) quizzed said Jennifer Lopez's nearly nude dress at the 1999 Grammy Awards was way too revealing. (Not revealing enough if you ask me. In fact she could have gone topless and I would have still not given a damn. Well maybe just a little.)
Another 43 percent (Out of how many was that again?) ripped Britney Spears' skintight duds at the 2000 MTV Video Music Awards. (Hehe. I would have liked to have ripped them myself.)
But top shrinks and sex experts say some of the complainers are really nothing but hypocrites. (Top shrinks and sex experts? And these people would be?)
"They're all complaining but they don't turn it off, do they? (Thank you. A step towards the truth.) Look at the ratings on some of these shows," Los Angeles clinical psychologist Dr. Robert Butterworth told The Post. (Is he married? His wife would be Mrs. Butterworth. They must have pancakes every morning.)
California sex therapist Dr. William Fitzgerald said while "some of the stuff on MTV I'm startled by, we don't need more suppression of sex. We need more acceptance of sexual diversity and more sex education. People are too rigid in their views of sexuality." (Hehe he said rigid.)
Asked to rate the most "fun-sexy" shows, adults gave Friends and Just Shoot Me top honors. (So there are good sexy and bad sexy shows? Doesn't this contradict the purpose of your survey?) The most "offensive-sexy" programs were Howard Stern and G-String Divas. (What the hell is G-String Divas? What the hell channel is that on and why have I never seen it?)
Family Circle also quizzed Americans (Hello. HOW MANY!!!!!) about the R-rated films they've made strictly off-limits to their kids.
The top five forbidden films for teens are: The Full Monty (Umm...if I remember correctly there were a couple naked butts in this but nothing a teenager hasn't already seen in a high school locker room.), American Beauty (Hmm... frank discussions about life's problems. That's bad.) (You know sarcasm is hard to type.), Bull Durham (Tim Robbins in woman's underwear. What's sexy about that?), There's Something About Mary (Hmm...I don't remember any nudity in this movie either.) and The Big Chill. (I don't think I've seen this but from the information I found this sounds like a comedy about death. What's sexy about death?)
The poll surveyed 728 adults nationally, ages 25 to 60-plus. (728!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Excuse me? 728 people were surveyed. You expect me to buy this crap when you survey only 728 people? It's survey's like this that make our country as screwed up as it is today. Magazine's print this crap and people take it as fact. Seldom do they make it to the fine print of the article where they would find out that their survey numbers were so small that you could have stuck them on a bus and drove to a fast food place and bought them all a hamburger. To paraphrase Johnny Paycheck "Take This Poll and Shove It.")

Survey's worth doing again and again and....ohhh

Internet used as sex aid by women ("Oh yes....download that JPG...tell me I'm your little URL.")
April 23, 2001
The internet is being used as a sex aid by women, reports a website survey.
Over 1,100 people responded to an online questionnaire and four out of 10 said they actively spend time surfing internet sex sites and a third do so with their partner. (Only 4 out of 10 would admit it? And don't you just love surfing porn together?)
The survey aimed to find out what experiences users had of sex on the internet. (As opposed to what? Don't you think a survey should have a broader surveying topic? It's kind of like asking someone what candy bar they would most like to be eating right now while they are standing in front of you with a Snickers.) (Because, you know Snickers really satisfy.) (That's not a plug for Snickers, really.) (I'd mention Snickers a lot more if it was a plug for Snickers.) (Snickers.)
The results indicate women are not afraid of using the net as a sex aid - 63% were interested in getting online tips for a better sex life ("Insert slot A into slot B."); 54% were interested in advice and support on sex ("Sometimes he just can't get it up. Is it me? Please help."); 46% would buy sex books, toys or videos online ("Honey, when did we get 'Romancing The Bone'?"); 40% were interested in visiting sex sites (www.giveittomebigboy.com); 40% were interested in using the internet to explore different sexual practices ("So I wonder how they do things in Alaska?") and 53% like to go online to giggle at what they find. (Ah the only way to view porn on the net.)
The women said surfing sex sites was largely a way of enhancing an existing relationship, rather than a way of meeting new partners. (That would be just downright wrong. Right? Wouldn't it? I'm asking.)
More than 75% said they would steer clear of sex chat rooms (So all those people in there are actually guys pretending to be girls?!?!? That's it I'm breaking up with ShallWe69 tonight.), 84% said would say no to indulging in cybersex in a chat room with a stranger (It's not that bad. And it's easy clean up.) and 87% would not be interested in finding a sexual partner online. ("I would say that that numbers going to be a bit higher Alex.")
Of those who took part, 65% were married, 70% were aged 26 to 45, 96% were heterosexual and 48% had children. (Ok. How many of you tried to go to that website I listed above? You perverts!!!!)

B4...B4

Bingo 'more exciting than bungee jumping' (Umm...I don't think so.)
March 28, 2001
Bingo is more exciting than bungee jumping or watching naked lap dancers, according to research. (Well if you add naked lap dancers into that mix then I will say definitely not!)
The National Bingo Game Association tested the reactions of a dozen young male thrill seekers. (Well gee. What do you think the results would be? This is like asking the meat industry to do a study that meat might be bad for you. "After careful consideration, the meat industry has determined that meat is good." Duh!)
They found that bingo set their pulses racing faster than strippers or extreme sports. (Yeah right?!?!? Hold on let me get my shovel so I can clear a path through this crap.)
Heart monitors showed the men's pulses rose higher the nearer they came to winning a major bingo prize. (Hehe. How close did they get to the stripper?)
With just one number left to complete on the card, their heart rates were racing faster than when poised to leap from the bungee platform. (That's because right before you jump your head's saying "What the hell are you doing?" and your heart has just stop.)
Just before the bungee jump, the average heart rate rose from around 60 to 138 beats per minute.
In the lap-dancing club it hovered around 88. (I'm sure there were a couple other things hovering around the stripper.)
But with only one number still to complete on their bingo card their heart rates soared to an average 141 beats per minute. (This is a pretty sorry set of men.)
Sports psychologist Lee Ashworth said "Many of these guys were base jumpers who spend their free time parachuting from high buildings, so they are well used to taking big risks. (And looking at strippers I would guess.) Yet even these adrenaline junkies found the excitement of waiting to see if their winning number would come up almost too much to bear." (Obviously this was the first game of Bingo these guys had ever played. Playing Bingo is like being forced to watch reruns of Saved By The Bell. Except you can't change the channel and Tiffani-Amber Thiessen isn't in any of the episodes. Oh the agony!)

Inventions the blind could do without

Blind people may be able to 'see' with their tongues (So we're going to see a bunch of people walking around sticking their tongues out at everyone?)
March 14, 2001
Blind people could one day use their tongues to help them "see". (Why not help them see by using something to do with the eyes?)
Scientists have developed a device which transfers visual cues from a video camera to the brain through electrodes in the mouth. (How are you suppose to eat with these things in your mouth?)
A map of the outside world is sent to a postage stamp-sized "tongue display unit" made of 144 electrodes which stimulates the highly sensitive tongue. (Wouldn't this make your tongue swell? I mean all those electrical pulses shocking your tongue has to do some damage. Probably ruin your taste buds as well. They're blind not mutes.)
The device, developed by Paul Bach-y-Rita and Kurt Kaczmarek at the University of Wisconsin, US, has been successful at conveying simple information like computer-generated graphics. (But why the tongue?)
Researchers found that although it took around 50 hours of practice to master the unit, they quickly stopped noticing the "fizzing" sensation they felt and learned to interpret it - like people mastering Braille. (Fizzing sensation?!?!? I'm sorry I'd rather be blind thank you.)
With her eyes closed, Cheryl Schiltz managed to correctly navigate a computer maze as directed by the machine. (All the time trying to say the word apple and all that came out was asshole.)
To signal her to turn left, the electrodes on that side stimulated her tongue, and to go straight ahead the tingling pulsed from front to back. (How could anybody want this?)
She told New Scientist magazine: "It was just amazing. Just by feeling it on my tongue, my brain got the message where to go.
"It's kind of like when you stick your tongue on a 9-volt battery, but not as scary." (I'm sorry what? I stuck my tongue on a 9 volt battery once on a dare. ONCE. I don't ever plan on having that feeling again. It sucks.)
Within five years the researchers hope to condense the system into an inconspicuous unit that fits in the user's mouth (So this unit was huge and didn't fit entirely in the mouth?), with a wireless link from a spectacle-mounted video or infrared camera. (Why not just put the unit in the spectacles? Why screw around with the mouth at all?)

Things that go boom

(Disclaimer: The subject matter below is quite graphic and deals in things of a sexual nature. If you do not wish to read it. Please don't.)
Penis explodes during sex (Say what? This can happen?)
October 5, 2000
Doctors in Romania are treating a 28-year-old whose penis exploded while he was making love to his girlfriend. (Holy crap!)
Ilarie Coroiu was taken to hospital in the Transylvanian town of Cluj after his girlfriend, Magdalena, 18, "felt something strange" and noticed that the bed was covered in blood. (Wouldn't he have felt something first? Man he must have been really concentrating to not notice that HIS PENIS HAD EXPLODED!)
Dr Angela Domocos, head of the accident and emergency department at Cluj General Hospital, said: "It is very rare for this to happen. (I sure hope so.) We call it an exploded penis because it happens when the blood cavities in the penis burst. (They don't even have a medical term for it. That has to be a good sign.)
"I don't know what this couple were playing at (Condom a little too tight maybe?), but there must have been tremendous pressure inside the penis to make this happen." (How much pressure would one need? I mean my god!)
Mr Coroiu is now recovering after an operation to stop the bleeding.

An 'uplifting' experience

'Twin airbags' bra allows women to pump up their cleavage ("We're here to 'Pump...you Up!')
March 12, 2001
A revolutionary bra which allows women to pump up their cleavage has been launched. (Just in time to 'boost' the failing economy.)
The award-winning Ultrabra Airotic has crescent-shaped airbags (In case you get into a front end collision I would guess.) stitched into each cup. It can be inflated using a tiny rubber pump, increasing the bust size by up to two cups. ("Are those 2 cups bigger or are you just happy to see me?")
The product, already being worn by Mel B (She's a Spice Girl in case you didn't know. And personally I think she's just fine the way she is.), is priced at £28. It has already been ordered by 100,000 women, says Gossard.
The bra is made from sheer net fabric (Net fabric? Like the stuff they use to catch fish?) and is available in black, white and lavender. It will be on the high street from Wednesday. (Be on the high street? Is that British for 'on sale'?)
Gossard spokeswoman Christine Morgan says the revolutionary bra is a safe alternative to cleavage enhancing surgery and avoids the dangers of heavy gel-filled bras, which put pressure on women's backs. (Ok I'll agree there but wouldn't a normal bra solve this as well?)
She added: "A lot do not want to have huge breasts throughout the day but do want to have them in the evening. (I like huge breasts throughout the day.)
"They may be meeting a client for lunch in the day and want to look demure and then go out clubbing in the evening. (And this helps that?) The pumps can fit in your handbag so if you want to deflate during the day, or in the evening you can go to the loo and get your pump. ("What are you doing in there Lois?" "Oh just pumping up my breasts.")
"It's a much healthier option than surgery and the bras are light, unlike gel-filled ones. .. It would be much better for a 16-year-old girl to wear one of our bras than to go and have a boob job." (What?!?! A 16 year old shouldn't even be considering this in the first place. Let alone being authorized to have breast surgery.)
The design took two years to develop and was tested in aeroplanes to make sure inflated bras would not explode under high pressure. (Hehe. I could see that. "The pilot has turned on the 'No Inflatable Bra' sign. Ladies please release the air in your bras at this time.") Purchasers of the Ultrabra Airotic are guaranteed their money back if their bust is not inflated by up to two sizes.
The bra, featuring what is described by Gossard as "twin airbags as standard" (They have a new product coming in the next few months that uses side impact airbags as well.) won the cleavage-enhancing bra award at the Lingerie Awards last week. (They'll have an awards show for just about anything won't they. "Welcome to the homeless guy living in the grate by the Denny's awards show. And here's your host, Toothless Bob.") It is the latest salvo in the bra wars with arch rivals Wonderbra, which has launched a Variable Cleavage bra operating on a pulley system. (A pulley system? Where do they come up with this stuff?)

Mr. Misty headache

[I like to call this one "Guest Appearance". Today's guest is Greg. You'll see his comments in (parentheses) and mine in the [box quotes]. Sometimes we just think alike. Scary really.]
Doctor: Cold helped preserve 2-year-old's body
Friday, March 9, 2001 
EAU CLAIRE, Wis. -- A 2-year-old boy's heart likely stopped beating for more than an hour while he was outside in subzero cold before being found Feb. 27, an Eau Claire surgeon says. (You think?) [Likely is quite the understatement.]
Dr. Robert Wiechmann, a cardiac surgeon at Luther Hospital, helped care for Les ``Paulie'' Hynek, who is continuing his recovery at a Minnesota hospital. (Les "Paulie"...sounds like a guitar!) [I think Steve Vai has a couple of this guy's instruments.]
The boy is believed to have walked outside about 3 a.m. while his father thought he was watching a video at their farm home near Eau Claire. (What about bedtime for crying out loud!) [Yeah. He was up watching a video at 3 am? Or is time backwards in Eau Claire?]
When the father realized the boy was gone, he found him collapsed outside at about 6:30 a.m. He was wearing only a diaper, footed flannel pajamas and a sweatshirt. [Did he expect to see him building a snowman?]
Wiechmann said the cold helped preserve the boy's body, because he would have continued breathing while he was cooling down, ``until the very minute his heart stopped beating.'' (Forgive me for being ignorant, but don't most people breathe until their heart stops? Wasn't it the cold that prompted the stoppages in the first place?) ["People don't make hearts stop, cold does. Don't do cold."] [Oh...oh "This is your heart. This is your heart on cold. Don't do cold."]
That mean he was supplying oxygen to the brain. (Uhh, yeah...) [I'm sorry was this suppose to be a question or a statement? Where's my grammar checker again?]
``He's cold, his brain is cold, so the need his brain has for oxygen and nutrients is minimal,'' Wiechmann said. ``His heart stopped, he had no heartbeat and no blood flow. If you were to do a brain wave test, it would be a flat line, meaning he has no brain activity.'' (So if we all freeze ourselves, we'll live forever! Sounds like a Mel Gibson movie.) [Let me see if I got this: he's cold, the brain's cold so his blood stops which stops his heart. And now we want to waste time doing a brain wave test to see if the effects of cold had some sort of effect?]
The heart typically stops beating around 73 degrees. [What do you mean typically? Did they run a bunch of tests? "Excuse me. We'd like to stop your heart. Would you please step into this freezer for me?"] The boy's body temperature had dipped to 61 degrees, Wiechmann said.
He estimated the boy's heart might have stopped more than an hour before he was found. Adding the time to get him to the emergency room and operating room, his heart may have been stopped for close to two hours, Wiechmann said.
But ``because of his circumstances, we knew it was possible to save him,'' he said. (This is about the most ambiguous statement I've ever read!) [Isn't that how all doctors save people? By figuring out the circumstances and then acting? Jeez!]
The boy is expected to remain hospitalized at the Mayo Clinic's Eugenio Litta Children's Hospital [That's not the big hospital, it's the litta one by da corner.] in Rochester, Minn., for another two weeks, mostly for treatment of his frostbitten hands, authorities said this week.
(So what the article says, is that the thing that almost killed him is the same thing that saved him? I don't quite get that!) [I think that is what you call the supreme irony?]

And the survey says!

Researchers claim female cockroaches don't like rough sex (Female cockroaches - 1. Researchers still total idiots.)
March 6, 2001
Scientists claim some female cockroaches prefer weaker partners because they like gentle sex. (And why do this study? Do I care about cockroach reproduction?)
A University of Manchester team has concluded stronger male cockroaches are too aggressive and often injure their partners. (So what. It's a cockroach. They survive direct nuclear assaults and we're concerned that they are having rough sex. What gives?)
However, the females produce fewer babies with weaker partners. (Note to self : Rough sex = more babies.) (Note to self : Have weaker sex.)
The scientists studied the sex life of the Tanzanian cockroach Nauphoeta cinerea (Napafuzzites cinemas?) and have published their results in the science journal Nature.
Elisabet Forsgren, a behavioural ecologist at Göteborg University in Sweden, commented: "People have taken it for granted that females should prefer dominant males. (Did you take that for granted? I know I did. Err...didn't.)
"But there are about a dozen species, from moths to birds to salamanders, where this has been shown not to be the case." (So we need to sit those moths, birds and salamanders down and have a little discussion, don't we? Don't make me come back there!)

Is this your HMO at work?

2 suspended for bad brain surgery (I bet this guy would complain, if he knew how to do that anymore.)
NEW YORK (AP) - A hospital suspended two doctors for allegedly operating on the wrong side of a man's brain. (Well I guess they do have a 50-50 chance of getting the right side.) Another procedure was performed the next day to remove a potentially fatal blood clot, and the patient was listed in stable condition. (Ouch. Two brain surgeries in two days.) His CT scan was reportedly placed backward on the viewing screen before the original surgery. (Ok I think the X-ray technicians need to start putting "This side up and forward" on all the slides.) The Long Island College Hospital in Brooklyn and the New York State Health Department are investigating.
``Well-established hospital policies were clearly violated (Like double checking the x-ray before cutting a man's head open?),'' the hospital said Monday in a statement. ``The incident was reported promptly to the appropriate regulatory agencies and the hospital will cooperate fully with their investigation.'' (As if they had a choice.) The hospital declined to answer specific questions about the surgery, citing the pending investigation. Drs. Rene Kotzen and Mike W. Chou are accused of mistakenly operating on the left side of Kevin Walsh's brain on Tuesday. (I don't know much about brain surgery but I would think that a blood clot would be really visible. I sure hope they didn't remove something else.) The next day, the second surgery was performed on the right side of Walsh's brain, and the doctors were  suspended. Kotzen, 44, was reported to have performed the operation. A lawyer for Chou, 37, said his client prepared the patient for the procedure, but was not present for the surgery. Neither suspended doctor is reported to have any recent record of medical miscues. ``Yeah, it's weird,'' Walsh said. ``I don't know much. (Well yeah. Someone was poking around your brain.) They're still investigating. All I know is my head hurts.'' (Note to self: Always ask to see the x-rays before surgery and carry post-it notes to place on the correct side.) (Post-it: Please operate on right side of brain. DO NOT operate on left side. I repeat. The blood clot is on the RIGHT SIDE.)

Suggested reading material

Red Riding Hood originally offered warning about premarital sex and a striptease (Damn I need to reread that book!)
Wednesday, February 7, 2001  
WASHINGTON, Pa. - The children's story Little Red Riding Hood originally offered a warning about the dangers of premarital sex and a striptease by the title character (Say what? When did Red take her clothes off? Dammit. Why do I keep missing these things!), a professor at Washington and Jefferson College says.
Early versions also ended with all the characters being eaten by the wolf (What? Where is this guy coming up with this stuff?) but the story was toned down by the Brothers Grimm, said Professor Elizabeth Bennett. (What would have been the moral behind the story if they had been eaten? Don't go to Grandmas.)
"Be warned. You may never be able to look at fairy tales the same way again," Bennett said in her syllabus. (Well if she'd just get out of the silly bus we wouldn't have a problem now would we.)
Bennett teaches a four-week course, "The Psychology of Fairy Tales," and offers a new take on traditional children's stories. (Oh you mean HER side of the story. Maybe she just has some unresolved issues of her own that lead her to these insane conclusions.)
"I don't think I've been totally traumatized," said Dara Anderson, a student in the class. "I think I've learned to look at things differently." ("Always look on the bright side of life." *whistling*) (Sorry about the Monty Python reference.)

Boldly leaping into the 21st century

First space war game alarms Pentagon ("Come in C3PO. 3PO do you read me?! Shut down the trash compactor!")
January 30, 2001
THE Pentagon has held its first war games in space and discovered that it could be vulnerable to a serious defeat, (What that UFO technology not working out for them?) military planners said yesterday. (I think they just need to hire some new planners then.)
The five-day exercise, aimed at finding out how to defend America's satellites and destroy those of a potential enemy, is thought to have had alarming results. (Did someone set the alarm to the wrong time again? Just hit the snooze button.) Set in 2017, the deadly serious game (Oh deadly serious. I'm so scared.) (That was sarcasm in case you missed it.)- acted out in Colorado - involved two countries, codenamed Red and Blue, but obviously representing China and the United States. (Obviously? Who drew this correlation? When will we all just get along with China?)
Maj Gen William Looney III (Excuse me?!?! General Looney!! And he certainly isn't the first Looney out there.), commander of US air force space operations, said: "We don't normally play space. ("Usually we just play strip poker in the barracks with the ladies from C company") The purpose of this game was to focus on how we really would act in space."
The military has been reluctant to talk about the results of the war game (Are they scared? Do the results scare you in some way? Am I scary to you?), but it is believed both sides used "cyberattacks" - efforts to disable each other's mainframe computers. ("You have been infected with the 'I Got You Babe' virus. You're computer will now become pregnant, name your baby after the belt she should have been wearing when she met you, divorce you and shack up with a much younger computer.") The "Chinese" side also tried a pre-emptive strike by buying up all the commercial satellites ("I buy you. You no attack me now. Me smartest person. Thank you very much please.") it could find, blocking a vital source of support that the Pentagon has come to rely on. (Well then it's time for a new strategy then isn't it.)
Unexpected side-effects of the war game are thought to have included the new tactic of hijacking an opponent's satellites and using it to broadcast propaganda. (Didn't they do this in all of our previous wars? Radio Free Europe for example.)

Well it's about time.

(Ok this one is going to be bad and I mean that in a good sort of way. If you know what I mean.)
Australian inventor creates virtual reality sex doll
Friday, January 19, 2001
 LONDON - The ultimate form of safe sex has been devised by an Australian inventor. (Alone and in your bathroom? I don't think he invented that.)
Dominic Choy has applied to patent his design for a virtual reality sex doll, a "lifelike flexible mannequin covered with imitation skin." (Oooo that sounds sexy. Besides don't we already have something like this and you don't even need an internet connection to use it.) It would be powered by tiny motors to respond to a user's touch (Does it require a key and some gasoline to start?)- or to signals from a partner delivered via an Internet connection. (Huh? Does this require a DSL or cable modem connection? I'd hate to be disconnected right in the middle.)
A virtual reality headset would allow partners to "see" each other and could be programmed so that partners would resemble famous actors or pop stars, the journal New Scientist reported Wednesday. (Hmm...famous actors or pop stars, eh. Boy the possibilities are endless.)
Choy, of Cammeray in New South Wales, Australia, said: "The system will allow a user to enter a virtual world and have a sexual experience with a virtual human or indeed another real human who is also linked up to the same world. (I can see it now: "If you would like a sleazy motel, press 1. For an elegant penthouse suite, press 2. You have pressed 1. If you would like to have sex with Roseanne Barr, press 1. If you would like to have sex with your significant other, press 2. If you would like to have sex with Brittany Spears, press 3. You have pressed 3. Thank you and enjoy your fake experience.") In the case of a single-user version the user will be able to select whom they wish to interact with - a film star for instance." (Will you still be able to see what's happening in the "real" world, because that could get kind of messy. Especially if you aren't paying attention.)
He said that physical contact was simulated by the doll, which was controlled by the software. (Will it do windows? How about clean my bathroom?) It was a substantial advance in the "potential to heighten human stimulation in a virtual environment." (Yeah then all those computer nerds can maybe get a little.)

The proof is in the stomach?

A Small One for the Lady
Tuesday, December 26, 2000
In millions of households over the holiday season, women will be protesting that they can't drink as much as men. (Really? Protesting? Will they be carrying huge signs too? "I can't drink! You stink!") Fact or fantasy?
 For the vast majority of women, who have done the lion's share of the work (Hey now!), it would be nice to think that they could be adequately rewarded with a fair share of the champagne (Drink up.), but nature has determined otherwise. (Is that nature or the Cops?)
Alcohol is metabolized with the help of an enzyme, dehydrogenase (ADH). (Gesundheit.) Unfortunately (Or is the fortunately?), women's stomachs produce only half as much ADH as men's. (They sure that that's not just gas they're looking at?) This is not quite as disastrous as it might seem (Didn't seem disastrous to me. Were you worried?), however, because even in the male 80 percent of the body's ADH is produced by the liver and only 20 percent by the stomach. (Hey that's only 100% where's the other...oh right. Sorry, please continue.)
Even so, a loss of 10 per cent of ADH in women is of fundamental significance. ("Oh my god! I've lost 10%. Of what I don't know.") Women's weight, too, is more dependent on fat than muscle than is a man's. (AH HA!! No wonder I get in so much trouble. The truth hurts.)
Fat has a poor blood supply (Should we take up a collection for it? Alms for the poor fat!), so the alcohol in the bloodstream tends to be more concentrated in women than in men. (All the more reason to get them drunk. Right!?)
Female hormones are no help. (Never helped me either. Although I didn't have to shave as often.) A woman's tolerance of alcohol is reduced at the time of menstruation (Oh oh. New opening line fellas!), and throughout her reproductive years she will absorb alcohol faster and therefore become drunk more quickly (Yeah Baby!) but metabolize it less well, and so sober up more slowly. ("There's got to be a morning after.")
To some extent, women get their revenge after menopause, when their estrogen/testosterone balance is more like a male's. (Take that you bunch of drunken men.)
In his latter years a man's tolerance to alcohol begins to fall, (Oh no. Even before their latter years they tend to fall.) whereas a post-menopausal woman's rises. Having made allowance for height and weight, a post-menopausal woman will be able to share the bottle, fairly and equally, with a man. (Ain't no women sharing my bottle! Get your own.)
But younger women should drink less (Don't listen to them! It's all lies! Lies I tell you!), because there is evidence that, apart from getting drunk more easily, (Hehe.) they suffer cirrhosis and alcoholic cardiomyopathies more readily. (Cirriwhosists and cardiowhatsits?)
Have a good time over the holidays and remember that, as the Bible assures us, wine gladdens the heart. (And as we say in Ireland "Over the teeth and past the gums. Look out stomach, here it comes!")

Another useless survey

Boys More Vulnerable Than Girls From Birth (That's because guys aren't designed to give birth. Oh he means from the time they are born. I get it.)
Thursday December 21 7:18 PM ET
LONDON - Males are more vulnerable than females from the moment they are conceived, meaning parents should treat them more sensitively than they do, researchers said on Friday. (Was this done by a bunch of guys? They must really be geeks. All they need is a little love.)
Sebastian Kraemer, consultant psychiatrist at the Tavistock and Portman National Health Service Trust in England (Jeez can you get a longer name for this place?), said people were still ignorant of the biological and social disadvantages faced by the supposedly stronger sex. (What exactly is your point? We are all held down by "the man" at some point in our lives. Grow up.)
``The attitude still is that if he is a boy then he will be a bit tougher (Who still holds this stereotype in their head?),'' he told Reuters. Kraemer's study, ``The Fragile Male,'' was published in the British Medical Journal. (Why didn't he just call it "I've been beat up all my life for being a geek and I'm angry.")
Kraemer's research showed that the male fetus is at greater risk of death or damage (And this is different from a female fetus how exactly?), and by the time the baby is born a boy is four to six weeks less developed than a girl. (Well they always say that girls develop faster then boys. I think it's because of all that "extra" stuff they need to grow.)
Boys generally face more psychological problems during their early upbringing (Is he saying boys are needy? I don't remember being needy.) and require attention ("Mom. Look at me. Mom. Mom look at me. MOM!") , making them more vulnerable to poor parental care. (So it's really a parents responsibility more then a genetic vulnerability?)
The fact that they are often treated as more resilient than their sisters means that they suppress some faculties. ("I'm bleeding but I'm not gonna tell my mom 'cuz she'll just treat me like a baby and like put a band-aid on it.")
``There is a social pressure not to let boys be too weak and to toughen them up (Another nice stereotype. I thought research was suppose to break down these stereotypes.),'' Kraemer said. ``A boy who is full of sensitivity and vulnerability will have shut down a lot of his faculties within the first two years.'' (Ok now I'm confused. Does he want us to be tough or sensitive? And why do women want men to be sensitive and tough, but not too tough, you know what I mean?)
The biological disadvantages and those related to how males are treated in society and the family do not stop at childhood. (Of course not or this would have been a joke of a study. Right?)
Girls outperform boys at school -- 43 percent of British boys get grade ``C'' or above at the GSCE exams they take aged 16, compared with over 53 percent of girls. (Little boys usually just want to play. I know I did. Does this study show the parental involvement in the children surveyed? No. And besides that's only a 10% difference. That's pretty small if you ask me. It also seems that they are using a rather low grade to begin with.)
Suicides are three times as common among males than among females. (And this study explains that? I feel like doing it right now myself if more people like this get into research.)
``If parents were more aware of male sensitivity, (I feel like crying. No wait. I feel like hitting something. No wait. I'm so confused.) they might change the way they treat their sons,'' Kraemer said. ``The traditional attitude that 'boys will be boys' needs exploring further.'' (So does "researches will continue to do stupid research until someone looks at it closer".)

Down with the snowman!

SNOWMEN 'REINFORCE GENDER STEREOTYPES', SAYS DOCTOR
20 December 2000
Snowmen on Christmas cards reinforce traditional gender stereotypes by reflecting men in prominent (Do men have large carrots for their noses?), public roles (Snowmen with a briefcase?) and women in private, domestic situations, according to new research. (Did I pay for this? "The study of Snowmen and Snowwomen on Western Civilization. Part 2.")
Art historian Dr Tricia Cusack believes the festive figures represent a return to a more conservative, patriarchal view of society than exists today. ("Mommy why's daddy melting?")
The Birmingham University academic, who studies cultural meanings in visual imagery (Try understanding that 3 times real fast.), was prompted to research the topic after shopping for Christmas cards. (Prompted? By whom?)
"Snowmen in representations on cards were becoming more and more common and a kind of icon up there with Father Christmas, robins and holly.(Robins? Isn't that Batman's sidekick?) It's become even more marked in the last few years," she said. (I can solve this problem in 3 words: 2 small snowballs. Of course that all depends on where you put them.)
"I wanted to know why they should be so popular." (Umm...Christmas...snow on the ground...rolling the snow...stacking it...having fun...I think you see where I'm going here.)
In the research, which has been published by cultural history periodical New Formations, Dr Cusack also describes snowmen as reflecting the festival spirit of overeating and excess dating back to Medieval times and beyond. (Umm...NO. If you put the smaller ones in the middle and the bottom the damn thing won't stand up. Any 4 year old could tell you that.)
In promotional literature from the university, she writes: "In both the UK and US, Christmas has been gendered as woman's realm in its emphasis on children and family. (So men don't emphasize children and family? That seems rather stereotypical.)
"The snowman's location in the semi-public space of garden or field reinforces a spatial-social system marking women's sphere as the domestic-private and the men's as the commercial-public." (Huh? Plain English please. I swear these people talk this way so when someone points out how stupid they are they can just say "That's what I meant when I said that.")

Dangerous holiday treats

XMAS PUDS CAN BLOW UP HOME
CHRISTMAS puddings can explode if left too long in the microwave - (So do hamsters.) causing a blast big enough to rip through a HOUSE, (They felt this was so important that they had to capitalize it?) experts warn. (Now are these experts at exploding things or experts on Christmas pudding?)
Fruit, sugar and trapped water can react violently when over-heated and the bang can spark a major fire. (So it's not really the pudding that causes the house to explode it's the fire. Right?)
A woman of 49 (Is this the woman's age or does she have 49 children.) needed hospital treatment when her pud blew up, (Hehe. There's just a whole other visual every time they say pud.) and fire crews have reported a string of blazes caused by people ignoring cooking instructions. (Add 1 part sugar, 2 eggs whipped and 1 stick dynamite. Place gently in microwave. Cook until house starts on fire.)
David Jenkins, of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents,(It's about time we had one of these. Do they get to wear capes and tights and stuff? Not only that but they're Royalty. That has got to look good on a business card.) said: "People must realize that they are dealing with a potential explosive when they put puddings in the microwave. (I've gotten some really bad gas from them sometimes but explosive.)
"It seems comical but they could cause a blast capable of ripping through any home and leave a big hole in the festivities." (So does that drunk uncle who always seems to show up even when you move to a different city and change your name.)
Malcolm Westwood, of West Midlands fire service, added: "People leave puds (Hehe.) to cook while they go and enjoy themselves but it's important to keep an eye on them. They can go into orbit if over-cooked." (Go into orbit? I don't think they can obtain the needed velocity to break the earths atmosphere there Mr. Westwood. But I'm not an astronaut so maybe they can.)
Lancashire fire spokesman John Taylor, said: "Most Christmas call-outs are cooking-related. There has been a spate involving puds." ("Well Helen. My pudding made the news. All yours every did was win at the county fair.")

I'm in the mood for love

'Love light' promises to electrify libido (Ouch.)
Wednesday December 20, 2000
Powergen is claiming that its scientists have come up with a means to get couples in the mood for sex (Get them drunk and throw on some Barry White?) - a giant electric light. (Or as I like to call it "The Human Bug Zapper")
The "love light" is 6ft long and 18ins wide (Doesn't the adult film industry already have something electric and 6ft long?) and uses a combination of light, colours (Stupid European spelling. It's color.) and movement to stimulate the brain.
Although designed for the bedroom, it could be placed in any room just like a TV ("Shall we see what's on the 'love light' tonight dear. Oh look dancing colors and..honey what are you...hey stop...don't..(expletive deleted)...yes..."), the electricity firm said yesterday. Couples simply relax as they are covered in colours (colors) that play with their emotions. (Stop playing with my emotions.)
Powergen's team of scientists came up with the idea after being asked to work out the optimum lighting for work and relaxation. (Boy that would sure spruce up the old office now wouldn't it.) The team discovered that light, colour (color) and movement used at certain intensities and sequences could trigger arousal. ("Let's increase the frequency of this...Bob what are you doing? Don't touch that...Bob you're so...attractive by this light...")
A shimmering red light made couples feel warm, while green could prompt one partner to feel jealous. (Boy there's some real scientific work for you.) Yellow, however, was the real hit among couples who were more likely to get physical when that colour (color) was glimmering around them. (No wonder my last girlfriend had a crush on Big Bird.) The light's designer, Jamie Anley, said: "Love as an experience is dictated by the arousal of all five senses; however, for that love at first sight feeling it's the visual that dictates the initial chemistry. (Thank you Dr. Ruth.)
"The light has been designed to simulate the love experience (How is this possible?) and trigger arousal. It's almost as if it short circuits the brain into an amorous mood." (Anything for an excuse. Works for me.)
Powergen said the light could be available in supermarkets as early as May 2002. (Supermarkets? "I'll take a loaf of bread, a carton of eggs and could you hand me a 'love light'. Thanks.")

Blatant abuse I tell ya!

Plane-spotting penguins can't help falling over

Saturday, November 4, 2000

Everyone knows penguins can't fly, but a team of scientists are investigating why the tuxedo-suited birds can't seem to stand, at least when planes fly overhead. (How much of my money is being used for this?) Penguins in the south Atlantic are entranced (Maybe annoyed is more the word I would use here.) by planes flying overhead. (Do they fly in other places too?) Researchers are going to south Georgia in the south Atlantic to look into (southern) reports that (southern) penguins are so entranced by (southbound) planes flying overhead that they literally can't take their eyes off them and topple backwards to keep in them in sight. (Grammar checker anyone?) Stories about the dizzy birds (Now that's just rude. Calling them names.) had been received with skepticism until a senior officer with the British navy convinced them it might be worth checking out. (Ah ha. It's the British again!) "The penguins always look up at the helicopters and follow them all the way until they fall over backwards," said Stuart Matthews, operations officer on the British navy ship HMS Endurance. (Umm...Antarctic....icy...noisy helicopter....I think I'd look up too and could probably lose my balance in that environment.) It's not just an excuse to have a giggle at the funny-looking birds' expense. (yeah right!) Researcher Dr. Richard Stone, from the British Antarctic Survey, (They have a British Antarctic Survey? "Yup, this is the Antarctic. Guess the survey's done then.") said falling over backwards may be evidence that low-flying aircraft are stressing penguins out and might be making it difficult for them to breed. ("Oh honey. Yeah that's it. Flippers out. Do it like....What the heck is that?") The British navy isn't done with its penguin duty yet. (They have a huge black tie event coming up in 2 weeks.) Helicopters from the HMS Endurance will fly at different altitudes over the penguins to help with the research, Stone said. (That is going to take some Endurance to sit through this study.)

Interesting wastes of time.

"Minesweeper" could uncover math conundrum

November 2, 2000, 4:55 p.m. PT

BOSTON--"Minesweeper," a seemingly simple game included on most personal computers, could help mathematicians crack one of the field's most intriguing problems. (How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop?) Although some people may pass hours mindlessly playing "Minesweeper" (Some people? Hours? Where do they find these people?), mathematicians are toiling over a larger version of the game, hoping to solve a problem so confounding that an institute offered $1 million to anyone who could crack it. The buzz began after Richard Kaye, a mathematics professor at the University of Birmingham in England, started playing the game. (The buzz? Mathematicians are freaks.) "I'm always interested in games with math elements. Math and games go together brilliantly,'' Kaye said. "I realized there was probably some nice mathematics behind it. But I didn't know what I was looking for.'' (Can you use the word Math a few more times?) "Minesweeper," which is included with the Windows operating system, is a game in which players try to figure out which squares of a grid contain computerized mines. A number in each square indicates how many mines are in the squares around it. (Ooo that's intense.) After playing the game steadily for a few weeks (A few weeks? Dude, get to work.), Kaye realized that "Minesweeper," if played on a much larger grid, has the same mathematical characteristics as other problems deemed insolvable. (Like why mathematicians spend so much time playing "Minesweeper".) In fact, he said, the game could help in the quest for one of mathematics' white whales: the solution to what is known as the "P vs. NP'' problem. The problem has been around for about 30 years. (I think the statute of limitations has run out on this.) The problem attempts to determine whether questions that seem to be unsolvable within a reasonable period of time might actually have a relatively simple way of being solved, possibly by computer. (Who determines the "reasonable period of time"? And if they were relatively simple, why do they need the computer? "I can't make the coffee. Write up a coefficient for heat distribution." **20 years later** "Professor, the computer has your answer regarding the coffee conundrum of '86. It says 'plug in the pot'.) Kaye said that if someone were to figure out an algorithm for determining all combinations of mine placement in a large-scale version of "Minesweeper," that person will have solved the P vs. NP problem. (Woohoo! And there was much rejoicing. How does this affect me? Why are we wasting time to figure this out!) The Clay Mathematics Institute in Cambridge, Mass., has offered $1 million to anyone who can solve it. (Go crazy mathematicians! The universe will collapse without this knowledge.) The discovery could have a wider impact. "If there was a way of playing 'Minesweeper' efficiently, then there would also be a way of cracking codes efficiently,'' Kaye said. (Ah I get it. All they want is free cable.) Ian Stewart, a research mathematician who teaches at the University of Warwick in England, agreed. "It's surprising that such a simple game would put us at such a frontier of mathematics. But the big questions in math are not very far below the surface of everyday life," he said.' (Umm...What?!?) Arthur Jaffe, president of the Clay Mathematics Institute, said he was already a fan of the game before he heard about Kaye's research. He plays the game on nights when he has trouble falling asleep. (Yeah it definitely puts me to sleep.) "I told my 14-year-old daughter about it,'' he said. "She was just amazed it was educational.'' (Educational? Hardly.)

Good news on the sex front

Drop The Pounds...Add The Inches

NEW YORK - New proof of the ultimate nightmare. (Well ultimate is a little strong but it does rank up there for some of those 'less endowed'.) Eating all that fatty food, saturating your blood with cholesterol and hardening your arteries can also shorten your penis.(Egads!!!) That s according to Dr. J. Francois Eid, Director of the Male Sexual Function Unit (How does one get this job?) of New York Presbyterian Hospital. Blood supply is reduced when your arteries become lined with cholesterol. And your penis needs fast-moving blood flow to become erect. (Fast-moving blood flow? I think it needs a little more then that, right? Pictures maybe. A little somethin', somethin'. You know what I mean.) Says Dr. Eid, [Overweight] men carry their weight at their abdomen, and this shortens the shaft...for every 35 pounds of weight loss, there is an apparent increase in penile length of 1 inch. (It's a new ad campaign for weight loss clinics everywhere. I'm dropping 70 pounds tonight baby.)