Effect Measure
See the link for an interesting article about how little is actually known about the details of flu virus transmission.
Thursday, August 02, 2007
Interesting way to kill time?
Digital archive casts new light on Apollo-era moon pictures
There's a project underway to get extremely high quality scans of the Apollo era film photographs of the Moon on line. From the article:
There's a project underway to get extremely high quality scans of the Apollo era film photographs of the Moon on line. From the article:
....the grain of the original film is visible when scans are fully enlarged. The most detailed images from lunar orbit show rocks and other surface features about 40 inches (1 meter) wide.I wonder just how carefully these photos have been looked at already (there's 36,000, after all.) What's the bet that some people might will be spending hours looking at them for an alien artefact that been missed so far.
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
Steinophilia
The Cornish giant | Food and drink | Life and Health
I have always liked Rick Stein's TV shows, and in particular, loved his last series set about a canal trip through France. He has always struck me as the most likeable of the British TV cooks, even though his recipes still often seem to follow an English tradition of involving either significant amounts of fats and oils, or types of fish you don't get here.
(His recipes are, however, nothing to compare with the amazingly dangerous food of the Two Fat Ladies. I wouldn't mind betting that a large part of their audience were people who watched simply in order to be amusingly appalled at how much lard, butter, duck fat, cream, etc they could cram into every single dish. Certainly, that was the main fun I got out of watching it.)
Anyhow, the link above is to an article in The Guardian about him, and it informs us that another TV series is on the way. Great.
I have always liked Rick Stein's TV shows, and in particular, loved his last series set about a canal trip through France. He has always struck me as the most likeable of the British TV cooks, even though his recipes still often seem to follow an English tradition of involving either significant amounts of fats and oils, or types of fish you don't get here.
(His recipes are, however, nothing to compare with the amazingly dangerous food of the Two Fat Ladies. I wouldn't mind betting that a large part of their audience were people who watched simply in order to be amusingly appalled at how much lard, butter, duck fat, cream, etc they could cram into every single dish. Certainly, that was the main fun I got out of watching it.)
Anyhow, the link above is to an article in The Guardian about him, and it informs us that another TV series is on the way. Great.
Dr Haneef Part V
I've been busy fighting the good fight over at Larvatus Prodeo's latest thread about Dr Haneef, concerning the evidence disclosed yesterday that, to my mind, will convince a lot of people to give the government the benefit of the doubt about the decision to revoke Haneef's visa. (And remember, there is more evidence not disclosed.)
I don't think the fact that Haneef tried to contact the British police is at all conclusive on the issue of removing "reasonable suspicion". It would certainly help in a defence of a criminal charge, where all you have to do is raise a reasonable doubt, but that's not what we are talking of here.
I don't want to repeat the various points I have made over at LP; you can read the "Steve from Brisbane" posts if you like.
But I will repeat a couple of points here. My remaining criticism of Andrews is this: it seems to me that he could have avoided the "overriding the magistrate" criticism if he had been able to show that he made his decision before the Magistrate made her bail decision. As it was indeed a parallel process, I see no reason why he could not have made it beforehand, and put in place some form of proof as to when he made the decision, but then not announced it until after the bail decision. (To announce it beforehand would have invited criticism that he was seeking to prejudice the case before the Magistrate.)
This is still, I think, a relatively minor criticism in the scheme of things, and it is more about appearances than substance. The Australian is completely over the top in its editorial about this today, seemingly deciding that having put the boot into Andrews previously, it would look too embarrassing to now admit that maybe he was on solid grounds after all.
I am also thoroughly sick of the attitude that there must be strong criticism of the government to be found somewhere in all this. Now, some commenters and even papers have suggested "well, why did the government let him go. He could have been released into the community and watched." Surely this is forgetting that we are talking a non citizen here (admittedly one who was doing us a favour by working in our health system.) There are high costs involved in monitoring someone, and inherent risk involved that terrorist action may be attempted and not prevented.
The critics are the same ones who wanted to see him released into the community completely exonerated. Now it's "OK, maybe there was reason to suspect him, but you should have kept him here anyway."
Maybe, various critics, the answer is that you never knew enough about this to be making such confident judgements. And there is considerable hypocrisy in complaining about Andrews not disclosing all information when, in other circumstances, people would be complaining about breach of privacy if the Minister was releasing all "protected information" that led him to not issue (or revoke) a work visa.
UPDATE: the argument moved from LP to Club Troppo, where Ken Parish seems to have surprised most of his mates by siding with the Minister (while, like me, being fairly mildly critical of the timing of his decision.)
I don't think the fact that Haneef tried to contact the British police is at all conclusive on the issue of removing "reasonable suspicion". It would certainly help in a defence of a criminal charge, where all you have to do is raise a reasonable doubt, but that's not what we are talking of here.
I don't want to repeat the various points I have made over at LP; you can read the "Steve from Brisbane" posts if you like.
But I will repeat a couple of points here. My remaining criticism of Andrews is this: it seems to me that he could have avoided the "overriding the magistrate" criticism if he had been able to show that he made his decision before the Magistrate made her bail decision. As it was indeed a parallel process, I see no reason why he could not have made it beforehand, and put in place some form of proof as to when he made the decision, but then not announced it until after the bail decision. (To announce it beforehand would have invited criticism that he was seeking to prejudice the case before the Magistrate.)
This is still, I think, a relatively minor criticism in the scheme of things, and it is more about appearances than substance. The Australian is completely over the top in its editorial about this today, seemingly deciding that having put the boot into Andrews previously, it would look too embarrassing to now admit that maybe he was on solid grounds after all.
I am also thoroughly sick of the attitude that there must be strong criticism of the government to be found somewhere in all this. Now, some commenters and even papers have suggested "well, why did the government let him go. He could have been released into the community and watched." Surely this is forgetting that we are talking a non citizen here (admittedly one who was doing us a favour by working in our health system.) There are high costs involved in monitoring someone, and inherent risk involved that terrorist action may be attempted and not prevented.
The critics are the same ones who wanted to see him released into the community completely exonerated. Now it's "OK, maybe there was reason to suspect him, but you should have kept him here anyway."
Maybe, various critics, the answer is that you never knew enough about this to be making such confident judgements. And there is considerable hypocrisy in complaining about Andrews not disclosing all information when, in other circumstances, people would be complaining about breach of privacy if the Minister was releasing all "protected information" that led him to not issue (or revoke) a work visa.
UPDATE: the argument moved from LP to Club Troppo, where Ken Parish seems to have surprised most of his mates by siding with the Minister (while, like me, being fairly mildly critical of the timing of his decision.)
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Iraq optimism for real this time?
TigerHawk
In all the kerfuffle within Australia about a certain Indian doctor, it may have gone unnoticed that there is some pretty serious revision of prospects of success in Iraq underway in American at the moment. Tigerhawk's post linked to above has extract from a New York Times article by a couple of Brookings Institute analysts who have been there recently. It's interesting reading.
In fact, even within The Guardian there have been a couple of cautiously optimistic reports from within Iraq in the last couple of weeks.
Problem is, car bombs against civilian targets are extremely hard to stop, and while ever you have a couple of them going off and killing scores of Iraqis every week or fortnight, it's hard to convince us in the West that things are improving overall in the country.
Still, it would be rather interesting politically for Australia if, by our Federal election, the belief in progress in Iraq as a result of the surge has actually caught on.
In all the kerfuffle within Australia about a certain Indian doctor, it may have gone unnoticed that there is some pretty serious revision of prospects of success in Iraq underway in American at the moment. Tigerhawk's post linked to above has extract from a New York Times article by a couple of Brookings Institute analysts who have been there recently. It's interesting reading.
In fact, even within The Guardian there have been a couple of cautiously optimistic reports from within Iraq in the last couple of weeks.
Problem is, car bombs against civilian targets are extremely hard to stop, and while ever you have a couple of them going off and killing scores of Iraqis every week or fortnight, it's hard to convince us in the West that things are improving overall in the country.
Still, it would be rather interesting politically for Australia if, by our Federal election, the belief in progress in Iraq as a result of the surge has actually caught on.
Why dutch?
From 'Dutch wives' to old wives | The Japan Times Online
The Japanese call sex dolls "dutch wives". The link above mentions a recent exhibition of this product in Japan.
As to why "Dutch wives", Wikipedia offers an explanation, but I am not sure it makes sense:
But back to the Japan Times link, talking about the exhibition in Japan:
OK, now that I have brought this to your attention, you can go back to work.
The Japanese call sex dolls "dutch wives". The link above mentions a recent exhibition of this product in Japan.
As to why "Dutch wives", Wikipedia offers an explanation, but I am not sure it makes sense:
Silicone dolls are quite popular in Japan, where they are known as "Dutch Wives" ('datch waifu'). Their name originates from the term, possibly English, for the thick rattan or bamboo bolster, used to aid sleep in humid countries by keeping one's limbs lifted above sweaty sheets.I just thought that maybe it was internationally recognized that the Dutch were the world's first perverts.
But back to the Japan Times link, talking about the exhibition in Japan:
So, if you are in Japan and see some old codger bringing into his house what looks like a series of dismembered limbs, there may be a perfectly innocent explanation. (Depends how you define "innocent", too, I suppose.)A completely bald man with a cane, who appeared to be in his 70s, entered the gallery and, after fondling a fake female, chuckles and remarks, "Their hair's black — I like that. These days young women all dye their hair."
The gent fired a series of questions at the staff, apparently hoping they would ship a doll to him disassembled so he could sneak it into his house. The man was encouraged to visit Orient Industry's sales showroom in Ueno, but he settled onto a nearby couch and wistfully gazed at the dolls.
OK, now that I have brought this to your attention, you can go back to work.
So that's what Griff's been up to..
Travels with Griff Rhys Jones - Times Online
Only the other day I wondered what happened to the British comedian Griff Rhys Jones, who I used to find very funny.
Turns out he has done a bit of a Michael Palin and been doing travel shows and books. As far as I know, they haven't appeared here.
The article above contains some mildly amusing anecdotes, but overall, it seems to me not very well written.
Only the other day I wondered what happened to the British comedian Griff Rhys Jones, who I used to find very funny.
Turns out he has done a bit of a Michael Palin and been doing travel shows and books. As far as I know, they haven't appeared here.
The article above contains some mildly amusing anecdotes, but overall, it seems to me not very well written.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Dr Haneef Part IV
Some more points I want to make about Dr Haneef's case:
1. Talk about not being able to win with journalists no matter what you do. This morning on Radio National Breakfast, The Age's Michelle Gratton said that Immigration Minister Andrew's suggestion that he may now be able to release the extra information on which he decided to revoke Haneef's visa raises the question of why he could not release it previously.
Bloody hell. At the press conference when he announced the revocation decision, the journalists were immediately asking him questions along the lines of "well, now that you've found him to be of bad character, how do you expect him to get a fair trial." You can imagine the journalistic outrage if he had actually gone into the extra information in detail at that press conference.
The difference, Michelle, is that the criminal case is now gone. Bleeding obvious that this may make a difference, isn't it?
I also heard mention on some other news report this morning that Peter Russo had indicated there may be a "legal problem" with the release of the additional information. Is this because the Federal Court case will still be heard?
2. As the doctor's 60 Minutes interview: I note that a Sky News poll on whether he should get his visa re-instated is close to a 50/50 split. I think that a Sunrise one this morning had a majority against.
Subject to my normal major reservations about such polls, it still seems that the interview did not overwhelmingly convince the Australian population that he should get his visa back.
I wonder whether this is to do with a cultural difficulty in judging the sincerity of Indians. Their politeness, body language and facial expressions are different from ours, and I think the end result can be uncertainty as to how to "read" them. I have found this in my professional dealings with people from the subcontinent. I don't raise it as any excuse for clear mistakes made by the Federal Police/DPP; it is simply an observation.
3. I was initially puzzled at the Minister's decision on Friday to let Haneef stay at "residential detention", which was clearly inconsistent with the earlier decision that he should go into Villawood (at least if he ever availed himself of the bail that had been granted.) However, the reasons now seem clear: Dr Haneef met with immigration and indicated he would be leaving the next day, after giving an interview with media. There simply was not much point in sending him to Sydney prior to his departure, given the timing.
4. Any lengthy inquiry into this case would seem rather a waste of time to me. Investigations into who leaked what when there are many possible sources (and there were hundreds of police involved in this) are not likely to come to any firm conclusion. Evidence of mistakes being caused by wrong information given to the Federal Police from the British would be interesting, and might go some way to partially restoring the Fed's image. However, I think it is already clear that the stuff up was shared by the Federal Police, the DPP and its barristers.
But all this talk of it creating a crisis of confidence in the ability to handle terror cases is just journalistic overkill.
At worst, some guy who deserved to have his connections to terrorism investigated was detained for a month, and released after a poorly considered charge had been laid but then quickly dropped.
You can go on about the political "interference" in the visa revocation decision, but again at the end of the day some non citizen has had a working visa lost in circumstances which many people think unfair. I would expect that a significant number of other people have been rejected for visas in circumstances that may also be considered unfair by half the population if you let them see the information on which the decision is based. It happens. It is not the worst form of injustice in the world, or indeed the country.
People should just keep what has happened in some perspective here.
I would even include terrorism law supporter Peter Faris in this: on Friday I heard him suggest on radio that Dr Haneef should be paid a million dollars in compensation! Just overkill.
5. As I have mentioned me before, what annoys me about journalists' role in this is that they do not acknowledge that they themselves are part of the problem when they choose to publish unsourced leaks from the Federal Police or elsewhere. The media is a willing party to the attempted public manipulation of events; they have the ability, yet not the ethics apparently, to chose not to publish information which they must know is being leaked to prejudice opinion in favour of the police.
Yet it seems to me that the media will not criticise its own for doing this. Instead, it will only seek to take credit for leaking the defence material in rebuttal of rumours the media should never have published in the first place.
Journalists deserve the low reputation they have.
1. Talk about not being able to win with journalists no matter what you do. This morning on Radio National Breakfast, The Age's Michelle Gratton said that Immigration Minister Andrew's suggestion that he may now be able to release the extra information on which he decided to revoke Haneef's visa raises the question of why he could not release it previously.
Bloody hell. At the press conference when he announced the revocation decision, the journalists were immediately asking him questions along the lines of "well, now that you've found him to be of bad character, how do you expect him to get a fair trial." You can imagine the journalistic outrage if he had actually gone into the extra information in detail at that press conference.
The difference, Michelle, is that the criminal case is now gone. Bleeding obvious that this may make a difference, isn't it?
I also heard mention on some other news report this morning that Peter Russo had indicated there may be a "legal problem" with the release of the additional information. Is this because the Federal Court case will still be heard?
2. As the doctor's 60 Minutes interview: I note that a Sky News poll on whether he should get his visa re-instated is close to a 50/50 split. I think that a Sunrise one this morning had a majority against.
Subject to my normal major reservations about such polls, it still seems that the interview did not overwhelmingly convince the Australian population that he should get his visa back.
I wonder whether this is to do with a cultural difficulty in judging the sincerity of Indians. Their politeness, body language and facial expressions are different from ours, and I think the end result can be uncertainty as to how to "read" them. I have found this in my professional dealings with people from the subcontinent. I don't raise it as any excuse for clear mistakes made by the Federal Police/DPP; it is simply an observation.
3. I was initially puzzled at the Minister's decision on Friday to let Haneef stay at "residential detention", which was clearly inconsistent with the earlier decision that he should go into Villawood (at least if he ever availed himself of the bail that had been granted.) However, the reasons now seem clear: Dr Haneef met with immigration and indicated he would be leaving the next day, after giving an interview with media. There simply was not much point in sending him to Sydney prior to his departure, given the timing.
4. Any lengthy inquiry into this case would seem rather a waste of time to me. Investigations into who leaked what when there are many possible sources (and there were hundreds of police involved in this) are not likely to come to any firm conclusion. Evidence of mistakes being caused by wrong information given to the Federal Police from the British would be interesting, and might go some way to partially restoring the Fed's image. However, I think it is already clear that the stuff up was shared by the Federal Police, the DPP and its barristers.
But all this talk of it creating a crisis of confidence in the ability to handle terror cases is just journalistic overkill.
At worst, some guy who deserved to have his connections to terrorism investigated was detained for a month, and released after a poorly considered charge had been laid but then quickly dropped.
You can go on about the political "interference" in the visa revocation decision, but again at the end of the day some non citizen has had a working visa lost in circumstances which many people think unfair. I would expect that a significant number of other people have been rejected for visas in circumstances that may also be considered unfair by half the population if you let them see the information on which the decision is based. It happens. It is not the worst form of injustice in the world, or indeed the country.
People should just keep what has happened in some perspective here.
I would even include terrorism law supporter Peter Faris in this: on Friday I heard him suggest on radio that Dr Haneef should be paid a million dollars in compensation! Just overkill.
5. As I have mentioned me before, what annoys me about journalists' role in this is that they do not acknowledge that they themselves are part of the problem when they choose to publish unsourced leaks from the Federal Police or elsewhere. The media is a willing party to the attempted public manipulation of events; they have the ability, yet not the ethics apparently, to chose not to publish information which they must know is being leaked to prejudice opinion in favour of the police.
Yet it seems to me that the media will not criticise its own for doing this. Instead, it will only seek to take credit for leaking the defence material in rebuttal of rumours the media should never have published in the first place.
Journalists deserve the low reputation they have.
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Changing their tune on marijuana
Medical opinion comes full circle on cannabis dangers
You have probably read newspaper reports of this latest study, but the news@nature version linked to above (which, annoyingly, will likely disappear soon) makes this point which I have not seen elsewhere:
You have probably read newspaper reports of this latest study, but the news@nature version linked to above (which, annoyingly, will likely disappear soon) makes this point which I have not seen elsewhere:
The finding, which comes from a new study that combines results from 35 previous surveys, represents a significant U-turn from previous suggestions that cannabis is harmless to mental health. The analysis is published in medical journal The Lancet, which in 1995 began one of its issues with the sentence: "The smoking of cannabis, even long term, is not harmful to health."Now their tune has changed, with the latest study having this dire conclusion :
This suggests that 14% of all psychotic illness in Britain is caused by cannabis use.Yes, how dare one question the Lancet on anything, hey.
Antibiotic harm
Prescribing of antibiotics to children still at a level to cause drug resistance, warn experts
From the article:
From the article:
A paper published in 1999 reported that over half (55%) of children aged 0-5 years in the UK (the group of patients who receive most antibiotics in the community) receive an average of 2.2 prescriptions for a ß-lactam antibiotic like amoxicillin from their general practitioner each year.I would be curious to know how much Australian prescriptions have dropped over the last decade.
Although a reduction in prescribing (and the strategy of recommending a 24-48 hour delay before filling antibiotic prescriptions) has probably resulted in about a 40% fall in consumption since then, unpublished data suggest that community antibiotic prescribing is again rising, they say.
How to make space tourists nervous
Three die in Branson's space tourism rocket tests
This could be one of the shortest commercial tourism ventures ever.
This could be one of the shortest commercial tourism ventures ever.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Continuing the rat theme...
Lefties like to call our PM "the rodent, " as if that is an insult. But really, have a look at this video of an endearing rat:
One disturbing thing I have noticed while looking around Youtube rodent related videos are some showing snakes being fed live mice or rats. There is even an extremely gross video of a giant ugly pet frog eating live mice. (I am no fan of frogs at the best of times.) I will not link to it.
I really wonder about people who keep snakes and such like that (apparently) need to be fed live animals. You can't tell me that a snake, lizard or frog can respond to their human keepers in the way even a rat can, so I suppose they are kept mainly due to some sort of appreciation of their looks, or more likely, just for novelty value. But when such a pet involves the owner regularly feeding them other live animals, it just seems that it must involve some desensitising to cruelty.
One disturbing thing I have noticed while looking around Youtube rodent related videos are some showing snakes being fed live mice or rats. There is even an extremely gross video of a giant ugly pet frog eating live mice. (I am no fan of frogs at the best of times.) I will not link to it.
I really wonder about people who keep snakes and such like that (apparently) need to be fed live animals. You can't tell me that a snake, lizard or frog can respond to their human keepers in the way even a rat can, so I suppose they are kept mainly due to some sort of appreciation of their looks, or more likely, just for novelty value. But when such a pet involves the owner regularly feeding them other live animals, it just seems that it must involve some desensitising to cruelty.
The Grim Purrer
Oscar the cat 'predicts deaths' - World - smh.com.au
From the report:
From the report:
Yes, Oscar is a clever cat, but dogs are more useful in that they can detect cancer before you die from it, you know.Oscar the cat seems to have an uncanny knack for predicting when nursing home patients are going to die, by curling up next to them during their final hours.
His accuracy, observed in 25 cases, has led the staff to call family members once he has chosen someone. It usually means they have less than four hours to live.
"He doesn't make too many mistakes. He seems to understand when patients are about to die," said Dr David Dosa in an interview. He describes the phenomenon in a poignant essay in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Heresy
Renewable energy could 'rape' nature - earth - 25 July 2007 - New Scientist Environment
Quote:
Quote:
Ramping up the use of renewable energy would lead to the "rape of nature", meaning nuclear power should be developed instead. So argues noted conservation biologist and climate change researcher Jesse Ausubel in an opinion piece based on his and others' research.
Save it for the gin and tonic
Lemon douche is a cervical cancer risk
From the report:
From the report:
Lead researcher Dr Atiene Sagay, from Jos University in Nigeria, told the International AIDS Society conference in Sydney that women douched to avoid infection but it was totally ineffective."People suggested it could be a microbicide (but) we know much better than that now," Dr Sagay said.
He said the practice was not an effective contraceptive measure either, as semen kills the citric acid.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Dr Haneef, part III
New English PM Gordon Brown is proposing doubling that country's current limit for detaining terror suspects without charge from 28 to 56 days:
The Australian terrorism detention laws may have no set time limit for total detention. But in practice, as it is supervised by a court from the start, there is no realistic prospect of it being endless. To think otherwise means you have to be paranoid enough to believe that the Federal government could control a State appointed Magistrate.
The DPP today advised that it would review the evidence relating to the criminal charge against Dr Haneef. Even if the charge is dropped soon, as many suspect it will, it should be no reason to question the reasonableness of our pre-charge detention laws, which the British example indicates are far from draconian by international standards.
Dr Haneef's lawyer Peter Russo says that, apart from the issue of reviewing the criminal charge, the immediate issue is getting his client out of custody. I saw Dr Haneef's cousin, here to visit him, confirming on TV tonight that the doctor is being kept alone in his cell for 23 hours a day.
I will say it again: as far as I can tell, if Dr Haneef had arranged for the $10,000 bail surety to be paid (and even members of the public were offering to do this, although I am not sure if that is acceptable to the court), he could have avoided being in a cell in a real jail for 23 hours a day, and been kept in the much more relaxed form of detention in the immigration detention centre in Sydney, where he could mix with people who are not criminals and have had access to many recreational facilities not given to any type of prisoner.
If he is stressing out over the kind of detention he is being kept in now, it appears to be his own decision, and one that makes less and less sense the longer the review/trial process goes on.
Mr Brown said an extended detention limit was necessary to sift through the volume of evidence needed in terrorism cases...Quite the contrast to Australia, where a frenzy of complaint erupted in certain quarters over Dr Haneef being kept in custody for a fortnight, and only then with the apparent reluctance of the court, which was only approving extensions for days, not weeks, at a time.
Mr Brown said that extensions beyond 28 days would be subject to scrutiny by a high court and by parliament in specific cases.
The Australian terrorism detention laws may have no set time limit for total detention. But in practice, as it is supervised by a court from the start, there is no realistic prospect of it being endless. To think otherwise means you have to be paranoid enough to believe that the Federal government could control a State appointed Magistrate.
The DPP today advised that it would review the evidence relating to the criminal charge against Dr Haneef. Even if the charge is dropped soon, as many suspect it will, it should be no reason to question the reasonableness of our pre-charge detention laws, which the British example indicates are far from draconian by international standards.
Dr Haneef's lawyer Peter Russo says that, apart from the issue of reviewing the criminal charge, the immediate issue is getting his client out of custody. I saw Dr Haneef's cousin, here to visit him, confirming on TV tonight that the doctor is being kept alone in his cell for 23 hours a day.
I will say it again: as far as I can tell, if Dr Haneef had arranged for the $10,000 bail surety to be paid (and even members of the public were offering to do this, although I am not sure if that is acceptable to the court), he could have avoided being in a cell in a real jail for 23 hours a day, and been kept in the much more relaxed form of detention in the immigration detention centre in Sydney, where he could mix with people who are not criminals and have had access to many recreational facilities not given to any type of prisoner.
If he is stressing out over the kind of detention he is being kept in now, it appears to be his own decision, and one that makes less and less sense the longer the review/trial process goes on.
All you wanted to know about bonobos
Our Far-Flung Correspondents: Swingers: Reporting & Essays: The New Yorker
This is a long (12 page!) article from the New Yorker about bonobos, the (supposedly) sex-loving hippy apes of the Congo.
As you may expect, all is not what it seems. The first page of the article is very amusing, pointing out the seriously weird attitude that some people have of bonobos as societal role models. At a fund raiser for bonobo conservation, the writer meets "Wind":
The problem is, a lot of bonobo research was based on captive groups:
This is a long (12 page!) article from the New Yorker about bonobos, the (supposedly) sex-loving hippy apes of the Congo.
As you may expect, all is not what it seems. The first page of the article is very amusing, pointing out the seriously weird attitude that some people have of bonobos as societal role models. At a fund raiser for bonobo conservation, the writer meets "Wind":
I spoke to a tall man in his forties who went by the single name Wind, and who had driven from his home in North Carolina to sing at the event. He was a musician and a former practitioner of “metaphysical counselling,” which he also referred to as clairvoyance. He said that he had encountered bonobos a few years ago at Georgia State University, at the invitation of Sue Savage-Rumbaugh, a primatologist known for experiments that test the language-learning abilities of bonobos. (During one of Wind’s several visits to G.S.U., Peter Gabriel, the British pop star, was also there; Gabriel played a keyboard, another keyboard was put in front of a bonobo, and Wind played flutes and a small drum.) Bonobos are remarkable, Wind told me, for being capable of “unconditional love.” They were “tolerant, patient, forgiving, and supportive of one another.”...Yes, no doubt, if we all lived like bonobos, there would be no global warming.
It was Wind’s turn to perform. “Help Gaia and Gaia will help you,” he chanted into a microphone, in a booming voice that made people jump. “Help bonobo and bonobo will help you.”
The problem is, a lot of bonobo research was based on captive groups:
Captivity can have a striking impact on animal behavior. As Craig Stanford, a primatologist at the University of Southern California, recently put it, “Stuck together, bored out of their minds—what is there to do except eat and have sex?”Bonobos in the wild are not always nice. For that matter, nor are bonobos in zoos:
“I once saw five female bonobos attack a male in Apenheul, in Holland,” he said. “They were gnawing on his toes. I’d already seen bonobos with digits missing, but I’d thought they would have been bitten off like a dog would bite. But they really chew. There was flesh between their teeth. Now, that’s something to counter the idea of”—Stevens used a high, mocking voice—“ ‘Oh, I’m a bonobo, and I love everyone.’ ”
Stevens went on to recall a bonobo in the Stuttgart Zoo whose penis had been bitten off by a female.I'll stick with the humans for the moment.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
An insight into Hawking
Not Even Wrong - My Life With Stephen
Peter Woit's blog (Not Even Wrong) has a very interesting post summarising some of the memoirs of Jane Hawking, the ex-wife of Stephen Hawking. Go read.
Peter Woit's blog (Not Even Wrong) has a very interesting post summarising some of the memoirs of Jane Hawking, the ex-wife of Stephen Hawking. Go read.
More rat facts
Smart, Curious, Ticklish. Rats? - New York Times
It is the ongoing duty of this blog to point out the positive features of rats. This New York Times article summarises some things that have been mentioned here before (eg, rats can be tickled) but contains some information that's new to me:
Anyway, there's more:
It is the ongoing duty of this blog to point out the positive features of rats. This New York Times article summarises some things that have been mentioned here before (eg, rats can be tickled) but contains some information that's new to me:
When it comes to sex, the analogies between rats and humans are “profound,” said James G. Pfaus of Concordia University in Montreal. “It’s not simply instinctual for them,” he said. “Rats know what good sex is and what bad sex is. And when they have reason to anticipate great sex, they give you every indication they’re looking forward to it.”
They wiggle and paw at their ears, hop and dart, stop and flash a come-hither look backward. “We imbue our desire with words and meaning, they show us through actions,” he said. “The good thing about rats is, they don’t lie.”
I wonder how you give a rat "reason to anticipate great sex", as opposed to perfunctory sex with a partner they don't even like.
Anyway, there's more:
Rats have personalities, and they can be glum or cheerful depending on their upbringing and circumstances. One study showed that rats accustomed to good times tend to be optimists, while those reared in unstable conditions become pessimists. Both rats will learn to associate one sound with a good event — a gift of food — and another sound with no food, but when exposed to an ambiguous sound, the optimist will run over expecting to be fed and the pessimist will grumble and skulk away, expecting nothing.I wonder if a glum rat can still be tickled to help cheer him up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)