The Science of Things.
You ever stop to think about how useless some scientists are? Not all of them, natch. I'm sure that that cancer cure is coming pretty soon, eh? I won't get my hopes up any time soon. But anyway, there are some men of science who make the profession look like it ain't all what it's cracked up to be. They spend times not bettering the human race or unlocking any new information. They spend time gathering research and treading over things that either we already know and they're just "confirming it", or things that we really just don't care about to have ever crossed our mind at any point in our lives. We pay these people to conduct these assanine studies that have no baring whatsoever on our immediate lives, or our not so immediate lives for that matter. Here's a great example, and the source that brought on this rant...
The morning talk show on the radio this morning divulged of a recent study conducted by scientists. They concluded that in any 10 minute timespan, around the entire Earth, there are 25 people having sex.
Thanks. I really needed to know that. Now if I ever think "Hey, I wonder how many people have been getting busy since 10:18", I know the answer. This study really blows my mind. I don't even want to think about just how they got their research as it would just cause my head to explode to even begin to think about it. Invasion of privacy, what? What first got my attention and knocked me back a bit is this...
...Why is that an odd number?*
The subject of the study is an activity that kinda sorta involves 2 people. To have an odd number means that someone has to be getting double teamed, in which case, I'm sure that was intriguing for the scientists involved. That has to be the case, unless they consider masturbation sex now. And if that was true, I'm pretty sure you'd find that the number of people having "sex" in a 10 minute timespan around the globe is somewhere closer to the 9 million mark... 8,999,900 of them men.
I can see why they went with the average at a 10 minute span though. If they decided to say how many people sexing per minute, it would be 2.5. Two and a half people having sex. How can half a person have sex? Er... how can half a person even be alive?
I really want to know who's paying these choads. How many people screwing each other, deducing that eating food helps people feel healthier, and that running out in the middle of the street may result in injury or death are really not topics of discussion that are foreign to 99.9% of people (and the .1% are the scientists doing the experiment themselves). That job is worse than robbery. They get six figure salaries to sit there and figure out the percentage of recycled postmeal tree bark that goes into an issue of People Magazine. Fuck those guys.
It's about this time that my thought process turned to the "real" scientists. You know, the guys and girls who strive to find a cure for AIDS, discovering new properties of plants, microbioligists. We like to think they're as noble and heroic as they sound. But has anyone ever really stopped to think they're purposely hindering their own scientific study for their own benefit? I mean, cancer research gets an absolutely insane amount of charity every year. And like I said, we all like to think that it's all going to finding a way to defeat the horrible disease. But honestly, it's not. That 20 dollar donation you made last year might have just covered some asshole's lunch instead of buying some more supplies to aid the cancer study. Scientists, even the ones who actually "do stuff", aren't all pious as they make themselves out to be.
In closing, I always sucked at science. It was never my forte. Hell, giving a presentation in my English class on bog bodies, I had to explain oxidation, and I drew an H20 molecule with 2 fucking O's instead of H's. That ought to give you a clue on how scientifically inept I am. But if I had known that I could get a job researching what makes blueberries blue or some ridiculous shit like that, I may have listened a lit bit more intently in school.
* - I'm not dumb, I do know that it's an average, thus not necessarily an odd number of people. But still, the way it's worded makes it sound like someone's getting double the pleasure, if you know what I mean.
The morning talk show on the radio this morning divulged of a recent study conducted by scientists. They concluded that in any 10 minute timespan, around the entire Earth, there are 25 people having sex.
Thanks. I really needed to know that. Now if I ever think "Hey, I wonder how many people have been getting busy since 10:18", I know the answer. This study really blows my mind. I don't even want to think about just how they got their research as it would just cause my head to explode to even begin to think about it. Invasion of privacy, what? What first got my attention and knocked me back a bit is this...
...Why is that an odd number?*
The subject of the study is an activity that kinda sorta involves 2 people. To have an odd number means that someone has to be getting double teamed, in which case, I'm sure that was intriguing for the scientists involved. That has to be the case, unless they consider masturbation sex now. And if that was true, I'm pretty sure you'd find that the number of people having "sex" in a 10 minute timespan around the globe is somewhere closer to the 9 million mark... 8,999,900 of them men.
I can see why they went with the average at a 10 minute span though. If they decided to say how many people sexing per minute, it would be 2.5. Two and a half people having sex. How can half a person have sex? Er... how can half a person even be alive?
I really want to know who's paying these choads. How many people screwing each other, deducing that eating food helps people feel healthier, and that running out in the middle of the street may result in injury or death are really not topics of discussion that are foreign to 99.9% of people (and the .1% are the scientists doing the experiment themselves). That job is worse than robbery. They get six figure salaries to sit there and figure out the percentage of recycled postmeal tree bark that goes into an issue of People Magazine. Fuck those guys.
It's about this time that my thought process turned to the "real" scientists. You know, the guys and girls who strive to find a cure for AIDS, discovering new properties of plants, microbioligists. We like to think they're as noble and heroic as they sound. But has anyone ever really stopped to think they're purposely hindering their own scientific study for their own benefit? I mean, cancer research gets an absolutely insane amount of charity every year. And like I said, we all like to think that it's all going to finding a way to defeat the horrible disease. But honestly, it's not. That 20 dollar donation you made last year might have just covered some asshole's lunch instead of buying some more supplies to aid the cancer study. Scientists, even the ones who actually "do stuff", aren't all pious as they make themselves out to be.
In closing, I always sucked at science. It was never my forte. Hell, giving a presentation in my English class on bog bodies, I had to explain oxidation, and I drew an H20 molecule with 2 fucking O's instead of H's. That ought to give you a clue on how scientifically inept I am. But if I had known that I could get a job researching what makes blueberries blue or some ridiculous shit like that, I may have listened a lit bit more intently in school.
* - I'm not dumb, I do know that it's an average, thus not necessarily an odd number of people. But still, the way it's worded makes it sound like someone's getting double the pleasure, if you know what I mean.