epiphanatic

Posted on 01.30.08 by jstoner @ 9:04 pm

So at least he’s not a patent troll… Some of you may recall my previous post on the subject of Eric Holzle. Well, he’s doing it: he started Scientificmatch.com, a dating site that matches people based on their major histocompatibility complex (MHC) genes, plus some personality matching stuff. Plus they check you out, pretty thoroughly. Something to keep an eye on, see how it goes. Still, $1995 for a membership. It’s lifetime, but I wouldn’t expect to spend that much in my life on a dating site.

Filed under: ha and science|technology
Comments: 1 Comment

blowing Ann’s cover

Posted on 07.02.07 by jstoner @ 5:04 pm

I admit it: I love the Yes Men. Comic brilliance.

And they have an ongoing project–and I think it’s their biggest–a deep-cover prank so brilliant, it blows my mind. I don’t say “it blows my mind” lightly: my mind is not easy to blow at this point. But when I finally figured this out, I had no other way to describe it.

I’m speaking, of course, of the career of Ann Coulter.

Doubts? Just to be clear, let’s review one of the Yes Men’s prank methodologies.

The Yes Men represent themselves as members of an establishment organization, perhaps not explicitly right-wing, but serving a right wing agenda: perhaps some Bush-aligned government office, perhaps a world trade group.

Make an appearance at an appropriate public event, usually a conference. They’ve made several news show appearances, on BBC and CNBC. Perhaps a trade conference, perhaps a Heritage Foundation meeting. Get the confidence of the audience.

Give a speech. Work up to some proposal or statement that is completely outlandish, but based on the premises of that organization. Package it in a presentable, acceptable way.

Conservative audiences have been fooled into accepting slavery, using “Justice Vouchers” to allow repressive regimes to trade for the right to abuse their citizens, or a scheme for rationalizing death for profit. Their hidden biases are exposed, and they are discredited.

Ann? Ann targets a different crowd. She’s less focused on issues around globalization and injustice, and more focused on exposing the hypocrisy and gullibility of many on the religious right. She targets cultural conservatives more than social conservatives.

But the approach is similar: rehabilitating Joe McCarthy? Calling John Edwards a faggot? Or this page of quotes? Or this gaffe? How can you take her seriously? The point is, some actually do. They don’t get the joke.

She’s been at it longer than the Yes Men have. But it’s clear she has been an inspiration. And what does it mean to be a Yes Man, really? After all, you too can be a Yes Man. I wouldn’t be surprised to see them collaborating more directly in some way soon.

Now, being as I’m fairly liberal, why would I blow poor Ann’s cover like this? Well, I don’t really think I am: she has a committed audience. They might not like what I’m saying, but they won’t believe it anyway.

On the other hand, there are others who think they oppose her, who also don’t get the joke. Fellow liberals who find her infuriating. I was one of them for a while. I figure there’s no harm in letting them in on the prank. It is pretty funny.

Further, though I’m generally liberal, I’m also honest, and there are conservatives I respect. Honest disagreement is an important part of my politics.

Most of the conservatives I respect find her more infuriating than liberals do. And while I may oppose them in certain contexts, there’s no reason to be cruel. Besides, I think she illuminates an important distinction within conservatism: people who have a commitment to authentic American values, and people who will fall for fascism the first time they get scared. Terrorism’s low-hanging fruit: people terrorized-waiting-to-happen. And I think it’s import to know where we all stand with regard to that.

So, Ann, I have to say: great work. Hilarious. Way to show those America-haters. Nudge, nudge,wink, wink.

Filed under: ha and politics--us
Comments: None

It doesn’t mean I don’t love you

Posted on 03.10.07 by jstoner @ 9:03 pm

It’s a favorite turn of phrase: It doesn’t mean I don’t love you. Usually applicable with some version of ‘no.’ Examples:

‘Sounds like a fun party, but I can’t make it that evening. Which doesn’t mean I don’t love you.’

‘No, I’m not continuing my health club membership here. But it doesn’t mean I don’t love you.’

‘I can’t help you overhaul your transmission Sunday, I have Bears tickets. Dude, it doesn’t mean I don’t love you.’

Always said with either ironic disaffection, or affectionate regret. But always a small snark of ambiguity between the two.

Filed under: ha
Comments: None

patent jealousy

Posted on 01.04.07 by jstoner @ 10:15 pm

I hate you, Eric Holzle. Well, maybe not hate. But I am extremely jealous…
Some of you may have heard of the original ‘stinky t-shirt study‘:

In 1996, Claus Wedekind, a zoologist at Bern University in Switzerland, conducted what’s become known as the stinky T-shirt study. Wedekind had 44 men each wear a t-shirt for two nights straight, then tested how women reacted to the smelly shirts.

Like mice, women preferred the scent of men whose immune systems were unlike their own. If a man’s immune system was similar, a woman tended to describe his T-shirt as smelling like her father or brother.

More recent fiindings link this effect directly to genes in the major histocompatibility complex, or MHC:

…Then they looked at three MHC genes, each with two different varieties, and compared each partner’s genetic makeup.

The more similar, the less sexually responsive they were to their partners. They also were more unfaithful. The genetically similar women reported more attraction, interest and fantasy toward other men prior to ovulation. When they were not in this phase of the cycle, they showed no sexual interest outside of their partner.

So, I’m poking around at this stuff, thinking “This is the basis of a dating site! I can see it now: Get people to get their genes tested, have them post the data about their alleles to the site… it’s a simple match. If you make some money, you could even fund some research to collect more data about the impact of particular differences. You could market through gene testing clinics… damn, this has legs!”

Then, as I googled, I saw Eric’s patent application:

3. A method of matching human beings with others, comprising the steps of: (a) assembling and/or defining a population of human participants, physically and/or virtually, to be matched amongst themselves and/or any future or past participants in the context of a dating service, dating services, or other social groups or organizations; (b) producing, assembling, and/or observing the class I and class II MHC profiles of all or any fraction of the participants, where said profiles include the HLA-A and HLA-B loci in the class I region, and the DRB1 locus in the class II region; (c) comparing said profiles of some or all of the participants with said profiles of others and rating the degree of compatibility between any two or more people according to the number of alleles they have in common, where fewer commonalities represent a greater degree of compatibility; (d) matching said participants based on said comparisons.

Well, it is just a patent application, but if Amazon can get the 1-click patent, this is a shoo-in. I’m not familiar with the relevant bodies of prior art, but as such claims go, this isn’t bad.

Damn you, Eric Holzle. Damn you.

Filed under: ha and science|technology
Comments: 1 Comment

all great B movie concepts begin with the name

Posted on 06.14.06 by jstoner @ 9:58 am

Maybe not all, but many…

You’ve heard of the Knights Templar? Medieval monastic warriors for the Pope? Forcibly disbanded by Pope Clement V in the early 1300s?

Well, as it turns out, there was also a contemporaneous secret order of nuns, known as the Sisters of Righteous Mercy, sworn to protect the weak and the poor. Tended to operate in elite units: assassinations, sabotage, moving strategically against high-level targets.

Flash forward to today. The Sisters still operate in the shadows, fighting for those who cannot fight for themselves. Their movie?

FORCE OF HABIT

Sister Prudence, serving in a poor neighborhood, finds fishy goings-on at a storefront church down the street from the church. Young, poor churchgoers are disappearing, and no one will do anything about it.

The culprit? An unaffiliated lunatic who calls himself Reverend Jim, and his chainsaw named Jesus. As he descends on his prey and revs his chainsaw, he squeals with murderous glee: “Come to Jesus!”

Can Sister Prudence and the Sisters of Righteous Mercy stop Reverend Jim’s killing spree? Find out in

FORCE OF HABIT

You can hide a lot under those things…

Filed under: ha
Comments: None

September 19 is a very important day

Posted on 09.14.03 by jstoner @ 10:19 pm

Internaional Talk Like a Pirate Day is coming soon. Arrr!

Filed under: ha
Comments: None

the elder quoteable stoner

Posted on 08.05.03 by jstoner @ 10:49 pm

Dad had a great remark today:

“Just because someone stands on their head doesn’t mean you have to kiss their ass.”

Context: we were leaving Barnes & Noble in Crystal Lake. Dad couldn’t find a journal that was both cheap enough and not made in China. He observed, “Some of the ones made in China were more expensive.”

“These things don’t always make sense,” I said.

His responded, well, quoteably.

Not sure when I’d use that one again, but you can be soure I’ll be looking for opportunities.

Filed under: ha
Comments: None

Maureen, this is your fault

Posted on 07.14.03 by jstoner @ 2:06 pm

My friend Maureen mentioned that there was something I’d be interested in in the Chicago Reader, that might be on their website. It wasn’t, as far as I could tell. But there was a distracting link to The Straight Dope site, with Cecil Adam’s fun answers to those niggling questions.

There, I found a link to this hilarious discussion called “Modeling physics of heaving, bouncing, jiggling, swaying video game breasts”.

Maureen is trying to corrupt my mind. I can tell.

Filed under: ha
Comments: None

Favorite 19th-century polysyllabic insults

Posted on 06.15.03 by jstoner @ 3:49 pm

Why do so many of the great old insults have three syllables? I think I need to grow a big handlebar moustache to use these:

Mountebank!
Scallywag!
Reprobate! (alternately “Old reprobate!” or even better “You old reprobate!”)
Charlatan!
Hooligan!
Miscreant!
Jezebel!

Of course the ever-popular Shakespearean Insult Server has some good ones. I like “Fustilarian!,” though I can’t find a definition anywhere. I think my favorite from that site is “Measle!” though it doesn’t have many syllables. I also like “Maggot-pie!” (well, I like the insult, not the pie), though I suppose it requires Shakespearean context to establish a literary tone.

There are some other fun ones, like “Carpetbagger!” and Rapscallion! If anyone has more, let me know.

Now, back to my fustilary pursuits…

Filed under: ha
Comments: None

an amusing thought

Posted on 06.08.03 by jstoner @ 6:11 pm

Any purportedly comprehensive theory of human nature created by human beings must account for itself, its own formulation, and its own debate.

Filed under: ha
Comments: None