{ 5 Ways Stores Use Science to Trick You Into Buying Crap | Cracked }

{ Funky Forest - After School Club | more | Thanks Glenn }

A new theory of the brain attempts to explain one of the great puzzles of evolutionary biology: why we laugh.

One of the more complex aspects of human behaviour is our universal ability to laugh. Laughter has puzzled behavioural biologists for many years because it is hard to imagine how this strange behaviour has evolved.
Why would laughing individuals be fitter in reproductive terms? And why is this ability is built-in, like sneezing, rather than something we learn, like hunting?

Today, we get an interesting insight into these questions along with some tentative answers from Pedro Marijuán and Jorge Navarro at the Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud in Spain.

The evolution of laughter, they say, is intimately linked with the evolution of the human brain, itself a puzzle of the highest order. There is widespread belief that the brain evolved rapidly at the same time as human group sizes increased.

Bigger groups naturally lead to greater social complexity. And it’s easy to imagine that things like language and complex social behaviours are the result of brain evolution. But the latest thinking is more subtle.

Known as the social brain hypothesis, this holds that the brain evolved not to solve complicated ecological problems such as how to use tools, how to hunt more effectively and how to cook. Instead, the brain evolved to better cope with the social demands of living in larger groups.

{ The Physics arXiv Blog | Continue reading }

quote { Henri Bergson, Laughter: An Essay on the Meaning of Comic, 1911 | full text }

My costume tonight was an over-conceptualized disaster. I always have too many costume ideas. A monthly halloween would be best.

{ Tim Geoghegan | Continue reading | Images: Tim Geoghegan’s Timmovations }

{ Justin Bieber Found To Be Cleverly Disguised 51-Year-Old Pedophile | watch the video }

{ Passive aggressive notes }

1. It’s going to get worse
No silver linings and no lemonade. The elevator only goes down. The bright note is that the elevator will, at some point, stop.

2) The future isn’t going to feel futuristic
It’s simply going to feel weird and out-of-control-ish, the way it does now, because too many things are changing too quickly. The reason the future feels odd is because of its unpredictability. If the future didn’t feel weirdly unexpected, then something would be wrong.

{ Douglas Coupland’s guide to the next 10 years | The Globe and Mail | Continue reading }

photo { Ali Bosworth }

{ Mapping Stereotypes | more }

Look out into space and the signs are plain to see. The universe began in a Big Bang event some 13 billion years ago and has been expanding ever since. And the best evidence from the distance reaches of the cosmos is that this expansion is accelerating.

That has an important but unavoidable consequence: it means the universe will expand forever. And a universe that expands forever is infinite and eternal.

Today, a group of physicists rebel against this idea. They say an infinitely expanding universe cannot be so because the laws of physics do not work in an infinite cosmos. For these laws to make any sense, the universe must end, say Raphael Bousso at the University of California, Berkeley and few pals. And they have calculated when that is most likely to happen.

Their argument is deceptively simple and surprisingly powerful. Here’s how it goes. If the universe lasts forever, then any event that can happen, will happen, no matter how unlikely. In fact, this event will happen an infinite number of times.

This leads to a problem. When there are an infinite number of instances of every possible observation, it becomes impossible to determine the probabilities of any of these events occurring. And when that happens, the laws of physics simply don’t apply. They just break down. “This is known as the “measure problem” of eternal inflation,” say Bousso and buddies. (…)

When might his be? Bousso and co have crunched the numbers. “Time is unlikely to end in our lifetime, but there is a 50% chance that time will end within the next 3.7 billion years,” they say.

{ The Physics arXiv Blog | Continue reading }

This timeline of the Big Bang describes the history of the universe according to the prevailing scientific theory of how the universe came into being. (…) The best available measurements as of 2010 suggest that the initial conditions occurred between 13.3 and 13.9 billion years ago.

{ Wikipedia | Continue reading }

It may be possible to glimpse before the supposed beginning of time into the universe prior to the Big Bang, researchers now say.

Unfortunately, any such picture will always be fuzzy at best due to a kind of “cosmic forgetfulness.”

The Big Bang is often thought as the start of everything, including time, making any questions about what happened during it or beforehand nonsensical. Recently scientists have instead suggested the Big Bang might have just been the explosive beginning of the current era of the universe, hinting at a mysterious past.

{ Space | Continue reading }

The Chaotic Inflation theory is a variety of the inflationary universe model, which is itself an extension of the Big Bang theory. It was proposed by physicist Andrei Linde. (…)

The Chaotic Inflation theory is in some ways similar to Fred Hoyle’s Steady state theory, as it employs the metaphor of a universe that is eternally existing, and thus does not require a unique beginning or an ultimate end of the cosmos.

{ Wikipedia | Continue reading }

semantic bonus:

Okay, we’ll be starting in a few moments… just waiting for the drugs to take effect. (…)
 I mentioned that, earlier in the show, a drug joke - and I hate to do that, because it creates a mess, and I’m not into drugs any more. I quit completely, and I hate people who are still into it.

{ Steve Martin’s Monologue | Saturday Night Live Transcript | Continue reading }

photo { Bruce Davidson, Coney Island, 1959 }

{ But who exactly bought what? Even Mr Hirst admits, “I’m still finding out.” Dealers acquired some works, but 81% of the buyers were private collectors purchasing directly. | How Damien Hirst grew rich at the expense of his investors | The Economist | full story }

{ The Art Damien Hirst Stole | more | Thanks Tim }

{ 50cent | Twitter }

{ Colleen Nika }

{ Drinkinginthemorning.com | more | Thanks Glenn }

Neil deGrasse Tyson’s talk was called either “Adventures in Science Illiteracy” or “Brain Droppings of a Skeptic” (a title cribbed from George Carlin). He began by saying that he had something to do with Pluto’s demotion from being a planet, and that anybody who didn’t like it should “get over it.” The rest of his talk wandered over a large range of topics. (…)

Jury Duty I: Tyson described being called for jury duty. He was asked what he did, he said that he was an astrophysicist. When asked what he teaches, he said “a course on evaluating evidence and the unreliability of eyewitness testimony,” at which point he was promptly dismissed.

Jury Duty II: Tyson was called for jury duty again, and made the first cut of jurors. The facts of the case were described–the defendant was charged with the possession of “2000 mg” of cocaine. When the jurors were asked if they had any questions, Tyson asked, “why did you describe it as 2000 mg instead of 2 g, about the weight of a postage stamp? Aren’t you trying to bias the jury by making it sound like a large quantity of drugs?” At which point he was promptly dismissed. (…)

Inept Aliens: They travel trillions of miles to get here, then crash.

Conspiracy Theory: They tend to tacitly admit insufficient data. If an argument lasts more than five minutes, both sides are wrong.

{ The Amazing Meeting 6 | The Lippard blog | Continue reading }

{ Scott Adams }

{ J.D. Salinger PERSONALLY OWNED & USED Toilet Commode | eBay }