By Tom Hartsfield

Richard Feynman, a revered physicist, Nobel prize-winner and all-around trouble-maker once said, "Nobody understands quantum mechanics." When the perhaps most brilliant quantum theoretician in the world admits this about his life's work, you know the field is strange! Two of the most puzzling consequences of quantum mechanics are the uncertainty principle and zero-point energy. Taking advantage of these weird conclusions, physicists have carried out an experiment in which they claim to produce light out of what we perceive to be empty space.

The uncertainty principle is a law of the universe that keeps you from knowing exactly where something is and exactly where it is going at the same time. The surer you are about one of these things, the less sure you are about the other. Carried to its logical extreme, this means that anywhere you look there is a (very) small chance that something may randomly be there.

How much energy would you expect to find in the vacuum, in empty space? The intuitive answer would be none! Because of the uncertainty principle however, there is always a small likelihood that there may be something in any area of supposedly empty space. No matter how empty you think it is, there is always some probability of something being there and having energy. This possible energy is known as zero-point energy.

In their research published this month, physicists in Sweden used a pair of mirrors facing one another to produce light from the vacuum between them. By moving the mirrors, they changed the nature of what can randomly appear in the empty space in the middle. When light appears, a process known as the dynamical Casimir effect, it is stuck bouncing between the two mirrors and detected.

The trick to this measurement is that the mirrors have to move very fast -- close to the speed of light -- to create enough light to be measured. Moving anything close to the speed of light is nearly impossible. To avoid this difficulty, a superconducting circuit was designed to work just like a mirror whose reflecting abilities can be changed extremely rapidly. These circuits, based off of a SQUID (superconducting quantum interference device) can be manipulated cleverly to mimic the near light speed mirrors.

Despite this news, keep in mind that when you hear a claim that something is powered by zero-point energy, it is certain to be a complete fraud! No one has ever found any possible way to harvest energy from it. However, seeing another counterintuitive quantum mechanics prediction come true is exciting for physicists and those like Mr. Feynman who seek to understand our strange universe.

Tom Hartsfield is a physics graduate student at the University of Texas.

Have you ever experienced such sheer terror that you felt frozen and helpless? Have you ever suffered physical pain so excruciating that it felt like your whole world was encapsulated in agony?

In those moments, did you wish that you were blind to fear or numb to pain?

A wish like that seems almost the perfect topic for an episode of the Twilight Zone. A world without fear or pain would undoubtedly be both a blessing and a curse. In reality, a rare few don't have to ponder this notion, because they live with it every day.

A Life Without Fear

Meet the woman known only as SM. A genetic disorder that damaged her amygdalae has apparently rendered her without fear. She's handled venomous snakes feeling nothing but curiosity, she's walked through frightening haunted houses laughing and smiling, and she's calmly stared Death in the face. In 1996, a burglar put a knife to her throat in a city park. All SM said to the man was, "If you're going to kill me, you're gonna have to go through my God's angels first." She then calmly walked away.

Researchers at the University of Iowa have been studying SM for well over a decade. They acknowledge both the benefits and downsides that accompany her inability to feel fear:

A few years back, the team asked two clinical psychologists to interview SM without any knowledge of her condition. They described her as a "survivor", as "resilient" and even "heroic" in how she coped with adversity.

[But], "[SM]'s behavior, time and time again, leads her back to the very [dangerous] situations she should be avoiding. 

No Pain is Not a Gain

Meet Ashlyn Blocker. At twelve years of age, she can feel a "touch or a tickle, but cannot feel a painful pinch or extremes of heat or cold."

At first glance, this immunity to pain seems a blessing: Torment from a migraine, back pain, or a pinched nerve would be nonexistent. A football player might be able to play through injury and score the winning touchdown for his team. A firefighter would feel impervious to the flames when rushing headlong into a burning building to save a child.

But make no mistake, there are major drawbacks to a world without pain.

Ashlyn's congenital insensitivity to pain - one of only twenty documented cases in the world - was almost her downfall as an infant. She did not cry when she was hungry, pained, or sick. Now in middle school, she feels a sense of separation between herself and her classmates. According to Ashlyn's physician, Dr. Roland Staud, pain is far from negative:

"Pain sensitivity is your friend. You will have a lot of problems if you do not experience pain. It is essentially a gift, a warning signal to help you avoid potentially damaging actions."

A Future Without Fear or Pain?

SM and Ashlyn's situations raise a thought-provoking question. If scientific research yields a way to live a life devoid of pain or fear, would you choose such an existence?
 
In the future, this abstract query may become quite relevant. Russian military scientists have already attempted to engineer methods that could one day allow us to control pain and fear. In addition, neuroscientists are well on the way to pinpointing the areas of the brain that trigger specific emotions and senses. At this time, however, we can only speculate on if and when we will be able to regulate them and whether or not we would want to.

On Black Friday, throngs of people gather in stores across the country to partake in uninhibited consumerism, an activity that may reduce many to the most basic levels of human instinct. The same impulses that urged us to gorge on pumpkin pie and stuffing the day before will be hard at work again, this time compelling us to spend, spend, spend.


Black Friday isn't just great for buying Zhu Zhu Pets (50% off!), it's also great for studying human behavior. From the Wall Street Journal:

In an unusual study, about 50 shoppers in Los Angeles, Boston and Atlanta will wear a biometric-tracking sensor on their wrists when they hit stores this Friday. The goal is to understand how emotional states affect spending as well as how stresses differ between shopping in stores vs. online.

The above study, to be carried out by Shopper Sciences, seeks to examine the minute physiological reactions caused by shopping in a potentially stressful environment. With its long lines, irritable shoppers and salespeople, insane deals, and stampeding hordes, Black Friday provides the perfect opportunity to carry out this study.

New research from Winthrop University has also shed some light on the reasons behind why we shop on Black Friday. One of the tendered explanations is that Black Friday is like commercial hunting, satisfying our ancient hunter/gatherer tendencies. We lie in wait for that special deal and then we swoop in for the purchase. Afterwards, we might proudly display our acquired trophy to friends and relatives, while regaling them with a thrilling story of procurement pursuit.

But this 'hunting' can often give rise to poor behavior. Thus, from 2008 to 2010, Professor Sharon Lennon at the University of Delaware spent her Black Fridays observing and surveying shoppers in an attempt to discover what motivates consumers to misbehave. Lennon found that the shoppers who arduously planned their Black Friday endeavors were the most likely to stir up trouble because their prior expectations were often out of line with reality.

The reality is that Black Friday 2011 will feature insane deals coupled with inane human behavior. There might not be a better opportunity to engage in scientifically-motivated people watching.

For young males, there is usually no better way to prove their 'sophistication' than with unabashed acts of stupidity.

The 'dairy challenge' is one of these acts.

Loosely defined by Urban Dictionary as "drinking a gallon of milk quickly and trying to hold it down for an hour or more," the 'dairy challenge' can take different forms in order to fit the situation. For solo acts, a contestant might try to impress his friends by simply finishing a gallon within an hour. In groups, a competitive version of the challenge might be more apt, with participants each racing to chug their own gallon. The winner might be the one who finishes first and does so without vomiting for a set time period.

If you haven't yet surmised, the 'dairy challenge', while often hilarious, is definitely not a walk in the park. Serious contenders will rarely make it through the challenge without involuntarily vomiting or falling victim to serious gastrointestinal discomfort. Even if you win, you don't usually feel like a winner.


There are two primary reasons why nobody wins in the dairy challenge. The first, according to Technician Online is simple math:

There is a total stomach capacity as well as [an] individual tolerance for large quantities in your stomach at one time," Dr. Sarah Ash, Associate Professor and coordinator of the Undergraduate Nutrition Program, said. "The stomach in general only holds about a half a gallon -- one of the triggers of the vomit reflex are the so-called 'stretch' receptors in the stomach that sense when capacity has been met."

 
The second reason is partly tied to the enzyme lactase, or more specifically the lack of it. Lactase is a glycoside hydrolase that breaks down lactose -- a disaccharide present in milk -- into galactose and glucose. Lactase is produced in the small intestine, but as most of us age this production vastly diminishes. Estimates say that 75% of adults worldwide show some decrease in lactase activity.

Despite the relatively decent levels of lactase production among younger males, the amount produced by the body is still insufficient to cope with the exorbitant intake of lactose from a 'dairy challenge' attempt. This deficiency prompts symptoms like nausea, bloating, and extreme flatulence, all of which can serve as major stumbling blocks on the road to dairy dominance.

Some competitors have attempted to avoid these unpleasant symptoms by 'doping' on lactase supplements before a competition. A couple of Lactaid pills could grant a challenger the upper hand.  

Overall, there appears to be limited danger to dairy challengers, themselves, but as with most acts of idiocy there can often be unintended consequences. In 2008, nine members of the Delta Sigma Phi fraternity at Arizona State University were arrested for causing a minor car accident after vomiting into traffic while conducting the 'dairy challenge' on a footbridge.

There are times in life where things just start to pile up. Nowhere is this better exemplified than in the kitchen sink. What once was a sparkling basin where water could flow freely can occasionally become cluttered with a hodgepodge of forks, spoons, pots, pans, and plates--its silvery luster lost from the grime and grit of leftover spaghetti and spilled beverages.

It's not always your fault. Sometimes your schedule just gets hectic. Sometimes laziness takes its toll. Sometimes it's your kids or your roommates who are the guilty parties.

Whatever the justification for not cleaning the dishes, there are plenty of scientific reasons to just get it over with.

Physiologically speaking, loading the dishwasher is relatively simple. Taking no more than a few seconds per item, all you have to do is rotate your body in the transverse plane and forwardly flex your muscles at both the hip and knee joints -- a move that's more commonly known as a bending squat. This should be sufficient to lower your body into a position where you can place your dishes in the desired location.

Manually washing dishes should only take a few seconds per utensil, five seconds per bowl, and ten seconds per plate. Larger pots and pans should take no more than a minute. With practice, you can get your methodology down to a science.


Washing dishes soon after use can be much healthier. Leftover food slathered on dirty dishes can grow bacteria at an alarmingly rapid rate. When left at room temperature, bacteria can double in number in as little as twenty minutes. Best to just clean those dishes right away, said Ohio State researchers in a 2007 study. They also found that you don't even have to use scalding water to hygienically rinse your dishes.

Dish-washing may have also have some unforeseen benefits that can boost relationships. A study from the University of Western Ontario found that couples who share household work like dish-washing report "higher average measures of happiness and life satisfaction than those in other family models." Taking this one step further, Dr. Debby Herbenick, a sexual health educator at the Kinsey Institute, says that these 'sharing' couples also tend to "have more satisfying sex lives."

All-in-all, it appears that dish-washing sports universal merits from which anyone can benefit. Tell your chore-deriding children! Tell your slothful significant other! Tell your lazy, but lovable roommate! Before all those forks and knives decide to "occupy the disposal" and before you're forced to restrict your diet solely to take-out for lack of clean cooking supplies, do those dishes.

(And, Robert, if you're reading this, put your dishes in the dishwasher. The sink is turning in to the 'Leaning Tower of Pizza Trays'.)

The following is a guest post by Tom Hartsfield, a physics graduate student at the University of Texas.

Passengers of Spaceship Earth can breathe easier knowing that a space rock the size of an aircraft carrier is now putting nearly 30,000 miles between itself and us every hour. The asteroid 2005 YU55 made its nearest approach to our planet, an uncomfortable 180,000 miles, last Tuesday. This is the closest that any space-faring object of this size has come to our home in 35 years!

Astronomers took advantage of the rare chance to shoot a close-up picture of its surface with radar from the Goldstone Radio Observatory in the Mojave Desert in California. This powerful array of 200-foot radio telescopes is the same one that has communicated with all of the Apollo and Voyager spacecraft as well as the Spirit and Opportunity Mars rovers. Physicists were also able to calculate how close the rock would come on its next pass in 2041.

When a new asteroid is first identified, it is given a name beginning with the year of its sighting. Thousands of asteroids are discovered every year by professional and amateur astronomers, as well as computer programs that analyze telescope images. For this reason, each asteroid also needs a "last-name" consisting of two letters and a number that further identifies it. If an accurate orbit (the asteroid's past, present and future path through the solar system) can be calculated, the discoverers can choose to give it a more personal name.

After the discovery of 2005 YU55, scientists calculated that its orbit about the sun carries it very near to the earth's own orbit periodically. This lands the object on NASA's potentially hazardous asteroid (PHA) watch list. According to NASA, only about 1300 of the millions of asteroids in our solar system are classified as PHAs.

What are the chances of something this big hurtling down from space and slamming into the earth? It can be expected to only happen about once in 100,000 years according to astronomer and space-rock guru Alan Harris. The bad news is that the impact would be as powerful as 10,000 nuclear explosions, carving a crater several miles across or triggering an enormous tsunami if it splashed into the sea.

Luckily, the data gained by astronomers during the flyby allowed them to calculate that 2005 YU55 will pass a much more comfortable 9.3 million miles from earth in 2041. No need to stock up on canned food yet!

Sex.

This singular act has been the source of so much disharmony that it's almost not worth the trouble. We argue about it's education, about it's depiction, about the age at which it should be legal, and about simply doing it.

Society, in general, also treats sex in a furtive fashion, which is kind of funny if you think about it. Sex is a function that is necessary to our existence. How can something so engrained in our humanity be kept so closeted?

It was this question that in 1938 prompted Dr. Alfred Kinsey, a Harvard-educated professor of zoology, to begin an ambitious undertaking: the study of human sexuality. Before Kinsey set about this mission, knowledge about sex was scant, and the studies available in the public domain were either lacking depth or laden with bias. Seventy years, 18,000 face-to-face interviews, countless studies, and a major motion picture later, the Kinsey Institute has done more to further the understanding of sex than any other institution on the planet.


Some of the Kinsey Institute's findings have been thought-provoking. Their studies have shown that a female's preference for qualities in sexual partners can change depending upon their menstrual cycles. The institute has also demonstrated that a higher amount of cuddling promotes male happiness in a relationship.

Some of the Kinsey Institute's findings have been slightly humorous. In a 2010 study, Kinsey researchers asked participants what it means to "have sex." They found that 77% of the older men who were surveyed did not consider penile-vaginal intercourse to be sex. Then what is, I wonder?

But most of the research conducted by Kinsey Institute has been incredibly vital to society. The organization has meticulously examined such topics as normal and abnormal sexual behavior, prostitution, homosexuality, overpopulation, sexual development, and sexual abuse.

Despite the obvious benefit of the Kinsey Institute's work, their research, and sexual education in general, has often been mired in controversy. Opponents of comprehensive sexual education contend that an abstinence-only approach is the more proper course of action. 

But by simply urging abstinence and shoving sex under the rug, where will our nation's youth learn about sex? We would hope that they would learn from responsible parents, but this is all too often not the case. Instead, their curiosity might drive them to learn from mediums that readily purvey sex in a vulgar manner: pornography and television.

We have all recently bore witness to an unspeakable tragedy at Penn State. The alleged perpetrator of those heinous acts of sexual abuse grew up in a time where sex education was poorly handled and often nonexistent at schools or in the home. I can't help but wonder if this lack of guidance may have ultimately contributed to what happened.

The discussion of sex should be out in the open. If we can candidly and scientifically discuss sex in decent society, then perhaps we can put an end to the repugnant manner in which sex is perpetrated and portrayed by indecent society. The research and direction provided by the Kinsey Institute serves as a valuable resource to further this endeavor.

Americans are pessimistic about the economy -- and that's putting it mildly.

A November 11th Gallup poll found that Americans' overall perception of the jobs market is the worst that is has been in a decade. Responding to the question, "...Would you say that it is now a good time or a bad time to find a quality job?" over 90 percent of the survey's participants said that it was a "bad time."

In addition, an Associated Press/GfK poll discovered that a record high of respondents, 43 percent, describe the nation's economy as "very poor." The same poll also showed that a mere 23 percent of the population believes that the unemployment rate will decrease.

Numbers like these are nothing new; we've been seeing polls like this for well over two years. Many of us might even be at a point where we can't recall the last time public sentiment believed the economic outlook to be positive. This observation begets an intriguing question: Could this sweeping negativity actually be depressing the economy? By continually thinking that the economy is bad, are we, in effect, making it worse?

It's certainly possible. A 2007 study from the University of Chicago published in the Journal of Consumer Research revealed that negativity is contagious, and it can be an influential driver of societal consumer attitudes. According to the study's press release:

Consumers were presented with information about a new product and allowed to independently form their evaluations. As would be normally expected with many products, some of these evaluations were positive and others negative. The researchers then revealed to participants whether their peers evaluated the product negatively or positively. They found that the opinions of others exert especially strong influence on individual attitudes when these opinions are negative.

There is a parallel that can be drawn from this study to the current economic situation. Poll after poll has consistently suggested that the majority of Americans believe the economy to be in the toilet, and potentially heading further down the u-bend. Such an expression of negativity undoubtedly has an adverse effect on consumer spending, business hiring, bank lending, and a host of other factors that influence the overall well being of our economy.

The obvious solution to this problem is to adopt a "think positive" mentality. Though this mindset will not solve our nation's economic woes by itself, it definitely couldn't hurt.

"The many children and families now benefiting from 'Sesame Street' are participants in one of the most promising experiments in the history of [television]."                                       
                                     
                                                                  -President Richard Nixon

Over forty years since its inception, the Sesame Street experiment is alive and kicking. Though what then was mere conjecture is now becoming undeniable: watching Sesame Street is incredibly beneficial for children.

Scientists have labeled it the "Sesame Effect." Via numerous longitudinal studies, researchers have consistently shown that exposure to the program as a preschooler can translate into higher achievement in high school. In addition, frequent viewers of the program tend to have higher grades in math, English, and science, as well as higher overall GPAs than non-viewers. What's more, this effect bridges the socioeconomic spectrum. Researchers from the University of Kansas found that when watching Sesame Street, "children from disadvantaged backgrounds learned as much as advantaged children per hour of viewing."

If you think about it, the "Sesame Effect" makes perfect sense. Youth is a very sensitive time for all species, but this is especially true for humans. A child's brain is a work in progress, and it requires proper mental nourishment to ensure that it will develop and thrive. Scientists label early adolescence as a "window of opportunity" for learning, a time where the brain is "like a sponge." It's undoubtedly more beneficial to soak this sponge with wholesome entertainment like Sesame Street in lieu of say, "Spongebob Squarepants."

Curious if I could find some real-world examples of the "Sesame Effect," I called up my college roommate Sam. Now in medical school at Northwestern, Sam wants to make a tangible difference in the world. His life aspiration for the longest time has been either to cure cancer or AIDS. He often flip-flops on which one he'll dedicate his time to, but with his intelligence and work ethic, Sam could probably find time to cure both. Despite Sam's marble-man persona, the only thing that equals his genius is his modesty. To be honest, he's the kind of guy that you might love to hate, if you weren't too busy liking him.

Clued in by his adorable infatuation with Elmo, I hypothesized that Sam must have had a helping hand from Sesame Street in his adolescence. After inquiring, my suspicions were confirmed.

"When I was growing up, I think I watched Sesame Street on repeat for at least three years of my life," Sam told me. "Oh, and Thomas the Tank Engine."

After hearing his response, I told him about the "Sesame Effect." He immediately lit up with excitement.

"Is that true? Funny!" Sam exclaimed. "You know my friend Nikola swears by Sesame Street. He moved to the United States from Serbia when he was just a year old and his parents didn't speak a word of English, so he insists that he learned the language by watching Sesame Street. And if you try to tell him otherwise, he will adamantly disagree."

"What's Nikola doing now?" I asked.

"He just finished up his master's degree in electrical engineering from Carnegie Melon."

Not too shabby.

If Nikola and Sam's examples are any indication, the "Sesame Effect" can persist well past high school. Big Bird, Elmo, Cookie Monster, Oscar, Rosita, and the rest of the gang obviously do much more than just teach children how to count to ten. They help lay a foundation for success that can last a lifetime.

In life, there are two things that we can truly rely upon: One, that the laws of nature are constant; and two, that Sesame Street will always provide wholesome entertainment.

So much for one of those.

The laws of nature have recently come under fire from faster-than-light neutrinos and reports of varying electromagnetism throughout the universe. Whether or not these claims end up being true (probably not), they have -- at the very least -- sparked feuds within the scientific community.

Amidst all of this confusion, however, at least we still know how to get to Sesame Street.

For over forty-two years, Sesame Street has helped children "understand themselves and the world around them, appreciate human diversity, interpret the sights, sounds and experiences of their environment, and take beginning steps toward reading, writing, and math." Now in its 42nd season, the show aims to grant children in the United States a leg-up in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). Daunting? "Not at all," say the show's producers.

"Children are natural scientists," Rosmarie Truglio told USA Today in September at the season's start. "They're exploring the world around them and trying to figure out how the world works."

Truglio, the vice president for education and research at Sesame Workshop, believes that young kids are more than capable of understanding STEM subjects. Among the general population, there's a pervading sense that STEM subjects require genius-level thinking to grasp, but this is far from the truth. In fact, by believing that STEM subjects are hard, we're likely setting up mental roadblocks, thus making those topics much more challenging than they really are. With its new season, Sesame Street aims to prove how simple science and math can be.

To accomplish this goal, the show is putting forth an all-out effort through television, classroom instruction, worldwide initiatives, and online media. Nearly 400 science clips from the show have been posted to their website thus far, on topics ranging from "witnessing wind," to "observing whales," to "Worms on the Moon."

One of Sesame Street's most superb science initiatives is their "One World, One Sky" planetarium show. Though the show has been up and running since 2008, it is seeing a renewal of sorts brought on by the new focus on STEM. "One World, One Sky" partners Big Bird, Elmo, and Hu Hu Zhu, a Muppet from the Chinese version of Sesame Street. Together, the three companions engage on a fun-filled adventure to the moon. It's a mission meant to teach kids about astronomy and foster cross-cultural understanding between the youth of China and the United States.

In the past months, Chinese children have undoubtedly watched with pride as their country has taken bold steps into the cosmos. At the same time, American children have been witnessing the rise of a China as a world superpower that could challenge the United States. Such a situation is sure to prompt questions and uncertainty. Sesame Street, through the "One World, One Sky" initiative, is the perfect medium to cultivate empathy instead of enmity between the two cultures.

Sesame Street has also partnered with YouTube to offer interactive experiments that kids of all ages can enjoy. (And I do mean all ages.) Take, for example, the "Sink or Float?" experiment. With Cookie Monster and Emma as companions, the user can select the object who's buoyancy they wish to test, make a hypothesis, then watch as the experiment is carried out.


Think you know whether a coconut will sink or float? According to Cookie Monster, "It heavy. It hard. And a delicious topping on donuts. OM NOM NOM."

Oh yes, Sesame Street is still as innocent and educational as it has always been; the new focus on science hasn't changed a thing. In fact, on Sesame Street, science seems right at home.

Over the years, scientists have produced a vast collection of memorable pictures. While many of these images have been enshrined in our memories for their quintessential grandeur, others are remembered for a slightly different reason: They are positively strange.

Buff Baby. In 2004, scientists documented the first human case of a genetic mutation that vastly boosts muscle growth. The German boy, pictured above at a mere seven months of age, was found to have two mutated copies of a gene that codes for the protein myostatin, which functions as a muscle-growth inhibitor. The discovery sparked researchers to further examine the therapeutic effects that limiting myostatin can have on muscular dystrophy, obesity, and other ailments.
 

Yep, That's a Toothbrush. Who would have thought that "rectal foreign bodies" would be so well studied? In 1986, two researchers from the University of Wisconsin-Madison took it upon themselves to conduct a comprehensive review of over 182 cases of rectally self-inserted objects. That study must have been a pain in the rear to complete.
 

Mr. Researcher, if your mother knew that you were doing this she might be very upset. Humans and primates are programmed with several instinctual motor behaviors. One of them, as demonstrated in the photo, is the ability to grasp on to a rope when being dangled in mid-air. (Photo taken from Ethology - Introduction To the Compared Study of Behavior. I. Eibl-Eibesfeldt)


How Far Can Penguin Poo Fly? Victor Benno Meyer-Rochow and Jozsef Gal won the 2005 Ig Nobel Prize for physics "for using basic principles of physics to calculate the pressure that builds up inside a penguin." Each year, the Ig Nobel prizes are given for research that "cannot or should not be reproduced." True to those words, you'd be hard-pressed to find Gal and Meyer-Rochow's actual research anywhere on the internet. But, you can find the image shown above easily enough.

It's gross, it's heinous, and it's morally reprehensible!

But enough about Kim Kardashian's divorce. Let's talk about something much more upstanding: nail-biting and nose-picking -- or, for science's sake -- onchyophagia and rhinotillexomania.

First off, nail-biting is a habit as old as the human race. After all, clippers were undoubtedly in short supply among our caveman ancestors, so how do you think they trimmed their nails? Thousands of years later, nail-biting is still alive and kicking, with as many as 45% of teenagers and an untold amount of adults succumbing to this quirky tendency. The habit has been indicted with causing infection, melanonychia (browning of the nails), and embarrassment. With it's obvious detractors, abstainers may often wonder why nail-biters persist with their bad habit. Specialists insist that anxiety and boredom are often to blame.

Moving on, nose-picking is a habit that afflicts a majority of adolescents and as many as 90% of adults. "Gotcha" journalists are quick to expose celebrities and influential figures who have been caught with their fingers in the nasal vicinity. Whoever the nose-picker, be it Ralph Wiggum or Jerry Jones, the act is a tad unbecoming. Despite the taboo, Austrian lung specialist, Dr. Friedrich Bischinger, has even insisted that nose-picking -- and eating whatever you find -- might, in fact, be healthy.

Medically it makes great sense and is a perfectly natural thing to do. In terms of the immune system the nose is a filter in which a great deal of bacteria are collected, and when this mixture arrives in the intestines it works just like a medicine.

But let's be honest, any possible health benefits from nose-picking are undoubtedly outweighed by the potential embarrassment of being caught 'booger-handed.' And in terms of nail-biting, there seems to be no benefit whatsoever. So, if afflicted with either of these habits, how can you put an end to them?

Aversion therapy is a very common answer. It's both inexpensive and easy to apply. The basic idea is simple: condition yourself to associate your nasty habit with some kind of discomfort. For nail-biting, foul-tasting nail polish is a typical remedy. Where nose-picking is concerned, you could try a more hilarious method of aversion therapy.

All you have to do is obtain a thick rubber band and affix it to your wrist. As soon as you find yourself tempted to pick your nose give your wrist a resounding slap with the band. Apart from being a potential fix to your nose-picking problem, the 'rubber band fix' could serve as a terrific talking point!

Sunlight streams from the autumn sky. The beams cause the rippling water of Lake Calhoun to glimmer like diamonds. Leaves of amber and scarlet fall from the painted tress and take flight in the wind. Their aerial dance lends a lighthearted touch to this rustic October day in Minnesota.

Amidst this picturesque scene sits 28 year-old Taylor Baldry, recently returned from two years of teaching English in Japan. Baldry is currently unemployed, but he's far from idle. The self-described "brainstormer, art-designer, and large-nosed person" has a new project that has people talking, literally.

It's called "The Conversationalist." The project's goal? Resurrect the ancient art of actually talking face-to-face.

It's quite simple really. All Baldry needed to get going was a card table, a tablecloth, some folding chairs, a small brass reading lamp (for the ambiance), and a large sign touting "Free Conversations." He finalized the experience with a menu of topics that any passerby can sit down and peruse. Care to talk about the weather? How about the latest book that you read? Will you dare to dabble in politics? When a customer orders up a topic, Baldry supplies the discussion.



There is a point to Baldry's "Conversationalist," and it's far from irrelevant. In this day and age, true conversation is definitely on the decline.

You can blame the advent of technology like texting, social media, and instant messaging for this situation. While these forms of communication have broken down barriers in some areas - distance, for example - they've erected barriers in others. It's now easier to call or video-conference than it is to actually meet with someone. In addition, it's also easier to text a roommate from your room than it is to get up from your bean-bag chair, walk downstairs, and talk to them.

Lost amongst these technological forms of communication is genuine conversation. A text contains no easily discernible vocal inflection. There's no eye contact. There are no facial gestures. There's no body posturing. There are no handshakes or hugs. These cues can be vital to learning and real comprehension, and they are falling by the wayside.

At the same time, Americans are on their way to sending over 2 trillion texts per year. Many of these tend to be terse, occasionally incomprehensible, and subject to the whims of potentially unreliable cellular service.

Maybe the world is simply changing. Maybe one day we will all walk around with bionic implants, looking back at face-to-face conversation as a relic of a primitive society. But that day has certainly not come yet, not if Taylor Baldry has anything to say about it. As he told the Minneapolis Star Tribune:

"There's a sense that conversation seems to be this old-timey thing, and it doesn't have to be," he said. "I don't want it to go the way of the record and have it become something that only purists enjoy. I'd love to take [The Conversationalist] further and fuel a conversation revolution.

"But for now, it's me at a table in a park."

It's that time of the year again: the end of Daylight Saving Time (DST). This Sunday, roughly one-quarter of the world's population will shift their clocks back and wind up with one extra hour of time. For most of us, this practice has now become second nature, but it didn't used to be that way.

The idea of losing an hour in the fall and gaining an hour in the summer originated with, some might say, selfish motives. Daylight Saving Time was originally proposed by entomologist George Vernon Hudson in 1895, partly so that he could have more hours of daylight to collect insects in the afternoon. Ten years later, British outdoor enthusiast, William Willett independently conceived the idea because he was annoyed at having his afternoon rounds of golf cut short by dusk. Willett would tirelessly lobby Parliament to pass a daylight savings law until his death in 1915. (He must have really loved golf.)

Despite these efforts, daylight savings would not see widespread adoption until World War I, when Germany ratified the idea in order to preserve coal for the war effort. Not wanting to cede this advantage, the European Allies quickly followed suit and adopted the policy. The United States would later pass a daylight savings law in 1918.

In the many years following the adoption of Daylight Saving Time, the act has been scrutinized and studied to no end. Does it save energy? Does it boost the economy? Does it improve public safety? Does it make us healthier? The debate has occasionally gotten ugly.

It's this dispute that has prompted some states and counties to opt out of daylight savings. Arizona hasn't observed daylight savings in over forty years. Talk about confusing!

Most of us would probably agree that daylight Savings presents a mixed bag of costs and benefits. In the winter months, it's nice to wake up with the sun, but it's rather depressing that it get's dark so early. In the summer, it's great to have so much afternoon sunlight, but it's unfortunate that drive-in movies can't start until 10:00pm. Oh well, that's the price we pay for living a few latitudes away from the Equator.

All animals function - to some degree - on instinct. From the tiniest slug, to the largest elephant, to the brainiest human; we all are inherently inclined to perform certain behaviors. It's simply hard-wired into our brains.

The simplest form of instinct is a fixed-action-pattern. This is an innate behavior that is triggered by some sort of sign stimulus and - once initiated - will run to completion. One of the best known examples is the behavior of the nesting Graylag Goose. If an egg is displaced from the nest, the bird will reflexively roll the egg back to the nest with its beak. However, Konrad Lorenz discovered that it will complete this action even if the egg is removed during the behavior. The goose will simply continue with the behavior as if the egg was still there.


While scientists are hard-pressed to discover any perfect examples of fixed-action-patterns in humans, all Homo sapiens are born with basic instinctual behaviors. For example, a newborn infant will reflexively grab on to any object that is tendered. Studies have also demonstrated that babies will instinctively grab on to a rope to avoid falling. In addition, newborns have been found to grasp hair more firmly than other objects. This is possibly an evolutionary remnant of behavior that is witnessed in modern-day primates. Neonatal monkeys are hard-wired to hold on tight to their furry mothers.

A possible reason for the demonstrated lack of fixed-action-patterns in humans is that they have been replaced by the onset of culture. Where culture is well-developed, it seems that nurture can almost entirely replace nature. Humans no longer need to rely on instinct to survive, not when we have education, technology, and social norms.

However, one could argue that culture has developed its own version of fixed-action-patterns. For example, when one enters an elevator, he or she will almost inevitably turn and face the doors. Or, when a guest is invited in to someone's home, the host will almost always offer some sort of beverage. Granted, these behaviors are not compulsive, but they are compelled by very strong societal pressures.

While it appears that true fixed-action-patterns are confined to the animal kingdom, there are certain patterns that I wish would cross-over to humans. Many species of infant birds need only to open their squawking mouths to send their parents hurrying off in search of food. I wish that would have worked on my parents.

Can censoring swear words make comedy funnier? %$@# yeah it can!

Across the world wide web, forums are alight with the discussion. Though censorship can often be a sensitive subject, a steady stream of people seem to agree that - at least where comedy is concerned - 'bleeping' swear words can actually enhance the humor. (You can follow the conversation here, here, here, here, and here.)

So why exactly is this? As one enlightened commenter theorized:

The best I can come up with (and this is armchair psychology at its finest) is that the censorship of the particular words actually highlights their "offensiveness." In unedited, uncensored speech... I think my brain maybe just starts glossing over the foul language as foul language; it just becomes another adjective, interjection, or other part of speech. The "bleep" therefore serves as notice that the word which was expunged is OFFENSIVE, and makes me pay more attention to it in that light.

So, censorship can actually accentuate vulgarity instead of marginalizing it. This, in turn, makes the situation more hilarious. Great theory!

Another theory stems from the notion that censoring a swear word can fundamentally change the joke behind the humorous situation.

For example, the climax of the recent South Park episode, "Bass to Mouth," featured an epic battle between two gerbils, pitting the evil Wikileaks against his brother, Lemmiwinks.

Egged on by Frog King, a mystical animal spirit, Lemmiwinks successfully defeated his evil brother. During the battle, Frog King commented, "Dude, he is %$^&$#& him up."

In the uncensored version of this scene, you might be laughing (or not) because a foul-mouthed frog with a crown, robe and staff just dropped the "F-bomb."

But in the censored version of the scene, you might be laughing all the harder because a the aforementioned frog was so vulgar that he needed to be 'bleeped.'

It's a subtle variation, but in comedy, subtlety can often mean the difference between a funny joke and a flat joke.