World Wildlife Fund study finds that the number of marine life in the ocean has halved since 1970.
  • -
  • Vote
  • -

There may no longer be plenty of fish in the sea.

A new study from the World Wildlife Fund arrived Sept. 16 to give you that particular sinking feeling that can only be found in the apocalyptic state towards which the world is slowly deteriorating.

The study, which has yet to be peer-reviewed, found that global marine life has declined by half, half, since 1970.

Analysis by the Zoological Society of London (ZSL) of the population trends of marine species as presented in WWF's Living Blue Planet Report - an updated study of marine mammals, birds, reptiles and fish - shows a decline of 49 per cent in the size of marine populations between 1970 and 2012. As well as being disastrous for ecosystems, these findings spell trouble for all nations, especially people in the developing world who depend heavily on the ocean's resources.

The findings are based on the Living Planet Index, a database maintained and analysed by researchers at ZSL. Following alarming statistics raised in the Living Planet Report 2014, revealing huge declines in vertebrate populations around the world, this special report studies how overfishing, damage to habitat and climate change are affecting marine biodiversity.

The analysis tracked 5,829 populations of 1,234 species, from sea birds to sharks to leatherback turtles, making the data sets almost twice as large as past studies.

With fun subheadings like "Global food supply depleted" and "Devastating figures", the study credits climate change with causing the crazy decline.

Luckily, our national leaders are all firmly committed to reversing carbon emissions and slowing the steady pace of man-made climate change.

I've got to go lie down.

Ashley Madison was a a scam full of dudes and no women.
Via: Gizmodo
  • -
  • Vote
  • -

Like an onion, this whole Ashley Madison thing gets stinkier as you peel back the layers.

After the data breach, the ruining of several lesser celebrities and some unfortunate losses of life some new research has come to life that makes the whole thing even more of a sh*t show.

After much speculation going around, it was the diligent research efforts of Gizmodo that actually analyzed all that data to determine how many, if any, women were actively using the site.

This isn't a debauched wonderland of men cheating on their wives. It isn't even a sadscape of 31 million men competing to attract those 5.5 million women in the database. Instead, it's like a science fictional future where every woman on Earth is dead, and some Dilbert-like engineer has replaced them with badly-designed robots.

Those millions of Ashley Madison men were paying to hook up with women who appeared to have created profiles and then simply disappeared. Were they cobbled together by bots and bored admins, or just user debris? Whatever the answer, the more I examined those 5.5 million female profiles, the more obvious it became that none of them had ever talked to men on the site, or even used the site at all after creating a profile.

Basically, the engineers kept the profiles of the inactive women front and center to give the site more of a party vibe, then would bot responses to the millions of salivating doinks, before those ravenous louts realized the site was trash and took advantage of the elite feature and paid Ashley Madison to delete all their information. Which never happened.

There were tons of bots created and other hijinks, but Gizmodo found the most important detail to be in how many accounts checked their messages.

Then, three data fields changed everything. The first field, called mail_last_time, contained a timestamp indicating the last time a member checked the messages in their Ashley Madison inbox. If a person never checked their inbox, the field was blank. But even if they'd checked their messages only once, the field contained a date and time. About two-thirds of the men, or 20.2 million of them, had checked the messages in their accounts at least once. But only 1,492 women had ever checked their messages. It was a serious anomaly.

Gizmodo did a fantastic job on the research and the whole, long story is well worth reading.

But even if not, this information is a rotten cherry on the putrid sundae of infidelity.

A scientific study says smoking weed makes it less likely you'll get obese.
  • -
  • Vote
  • -

You know you need less guilt in your life, so along comes science to give you the go ahead for picking up that bong.

A study that came out earlier this year proclaims a whole lot of good news for those who find recreation in a cannabis variety.

Essentially, the conclusion says that, within the confines of their data, marijuana use leads to a lower body mass index. Meaning, pot makes you skinnier.

The AV Club does a splendid job of summarizing the findings:

the brilliant researchers found that in their sample population—786 Nunavik Inuits whose health data were surveyed in 2004—marijuana use also corresponded with a lower incidence of diabetes. The authors of the study do caution that some "caveats must be considered when interpreting their results." In other words, you should definitely smoke dope right now because it would be irresponsible not to fill your body with that nourishing, disease-fighting devil weed.

You'd think this sort of habit would pile on the pounds, but don't worry, science has accounted for that. In their study, the researchers from the eminent and infallible CHU De Québec Research Center write, "Frequent cannabis use is associated with higher caloric intake, but investigations into overweight/obesity have yielded inconsistent results." See? The results are inconsistent, so go ahead and eat as much as you want—but only if you ingest plenty of that wholesome, slimming giggle grass first.

So there you go! It's never too late for beach body 2015 and science has the weight loss tip of a lifetime.

By Unknown
  • -
  • Vote
  • -

Women As Fine Art of the Day: Underwear/lingerie manufacturer Triumph Australia has begun promoting a shift in body type labels from the common association with fruit (e.g. apple shaped, pear shaped, etc.) to a supposedly more flattering association with famous painters (e.g. da Vinci for "straight up and down," Rembrandt for "full bust and bottom," etc.).

Which iconic artist are you?


Back to Top