A fantastic new product: a speaker in vagina allows your fetus to hear unmuffled Mozart

January 5, 2016 • 10:30 am

Whether prenatal exposure to music really helps babies develop faster is controversial, but that hasn’t stopped pregnant women from buying all kinds of devices to expose their fetuses to music—usually classical. (This is based on the equally controversial and dubious “Mozart Effect“, the claim that cognition in children and adults is improved–short term–by listening to classical music.) Previously, the prenatal musical speakers were strapped to the belly, like this one:

article-1244656-07EF7646000005DC-517_468x560

 

But of course how well can your fetus really hear Mozart when those glorious notes have to penetrate all of the abdomenal skin, tissue, fat, and uterine wall? Can such the fetus distinguish between J. S. Bach and P. D. Q. Bach, or between Mozart and Aerosmith? That’s crucial.

Never fear! As reported in the Guardian, you can bypass a lot of that annoying and muffling tissue by sticking the speaker right into the vagina! And a Spanish company, Babypod, has just the ticket: a vaginal speaker system that costs only US$132.85. Here’s the item and how you use it:

Screen Shot 2016-01-05 at 9.36.22 AM

Screen Shot 2016-01-05 at 9.36.34 AM

Look at how that sound gets right up to the baby’s ears, and how the baby is smiling as it hears The Magic Flute! Of course it may play hob with your urination, not to mention your sex life, but you use it for only a short time:

Screen Shot 2016-01-05 at 9.37.13 AM

On its webpage, Babypod claims that it’s “the only device that has been demonstrated to stimulate the vocalization of babies before birth with music.” I wasn’t aware that babies could even vocalize before birth, being in liquid and all, but what do I know?

The Guardian gives more details (my emphasis):

The pale pink device, which costs 150 euros (£110), is controlled by a phone app but does not use Bluetooth. Parents-to-be can share their babies’ listening experience using split headphones which hang out of the vagina.

The Babypod, which has a top sound level of 54 decibels, is recommended for use from the 16th week of pregnancy, and for between 10-20 minutes a time – or around half the length of the average Joanna Newsom song.

Babypod was launched at the “first concert for foetuses ever held in the world” in which Soraya Arnelas, who finished 23rd in the 2009 Eurovision song contest, “serenaded” 10 pregnant women fitted with the speakers, singing Christmas carols.

Babypod reassures customers that the vibrations of the device do not adversely affect a foetus – “this is why sex toys are allowed in pregnancy”.

And here’s that Fetal Concert; apparently the singer’s music was transmitted directly into the vaginas of the audience. As she said, “I’ve never performed for such a young audience.”

I’m not sure I want to live in this world any more. . .

h/t: Grania

Steve Harvey, etc.

December 22, 2015 • 1:30 pm

Unless you’ve been in North Korea, you’ll know about Steve Harvey’s blunder at the Miss Universe pageant (go here if you don’t). Reader jsp sent me the photo below, along with some Schadenfreude implying that Harvey is both an atheist-basher and a creationist (I don’t know squat about him):

10689474_1668358686748772_995260004344133422_n
Well, Harvey botched his apology, too. Notice any problems with this tw**t he issued? (Those problems were subsequently corrected):

Screen Shot 2015-12-22 at 12.14.35 PM

Beside the double misspelling, what on earth does “terribly honest mistake” mean?

A new Sock Hypothesis

December 21, 2015 • 2:30 pm

by Grania

It is a truth universally acknowledged that socks bought in pairs will be reduced to a motley collection of singletons once you introduce them to your home.

A few days ago, Jerry posted one Missing Sock Hypothesis, that of the Eater Of Socks Monster from Terry Pratchett’s Hogfather. Now the ever wonderful Matthew Inman from The Oatmeal has a new one. Click through on the picture to see the original.

same_cloth

It’s a great tragedy. Who knew that it was all so heart-rending?

How not to tell your parents you are about to skydive

December 18, 2015 • 3:00 pm

by Matthew Cobb

A young Irishman called Roger Ryan is travelling the world, and is currently in Australia. He has been keeping his parents up to date with his progress via Skype, and in this recording he’s chatting to them from what they think is a bus. It was in fact a plane and he was about to jump out. Cue horror, hilarity and NSFW obscenities:

h/t The Guardian.

The Simpsons and evolution

December 16, 2015 • 12:30 pm

by Matthew Cobb

I guess that many of you will have seen this, but to my surprise, I see we have never posted it here. This is from 2010:

What’s noteworthy is that give or take a few anachronisms (T. rex and Stegosaurus were not alive at the same time), this is reasonably accurate – in particular it has a Dimetrodon-like organism as Homer’s ancestor, which indeed it was (or rather, it was our ancestor).

It does however skip over the transition to an early chordate and then to a bony fish in a remarkably brief time. And it suffers from the terrible sin of presentism, whereby the last few hundred years take up as much time as scores of millions of years deep in the past.

But hey, you know what? Humans don’t have yellow skin and bug eyes. It’s a cartoon, folks!

SCIENCE tells us what Jesus looked like!

December 15, 2015 • 8:45 am

Here’s a headline and subheadline from yesterday’s AOL News.  You can immediately spot two things wrong with it:

Screen Shot 2015-12-15 at 6.49.34 AM

Screen Shot 2015-12-15 at 6.58.19 AM

Seriously? That’s a news headline? First of all, it presupposes that a historical Jesus really existed, with the implication that it’s the Jesus who did the stuff described in the Bible. Well, based on the lack of evidence, I’m not prepared to admit that there really was a person who served as a model for Bible Jesus. But a more obvious problem is that any forensic reconstruction of a person’s face demands that we have his or her remains, and of course that’s not the case for Jesus Person. After all, if we had Jesus’s skull, which is what we need to reconstruct the face, we’d have stronger evidence that Jesus really existed.

For example, you probably remember that the remains of King Richard III were found under a car park in Leicester in 2013, identified by DNA analysis, and then his facial features painstakingly reconstructed from the skull (the last link also gives an idea of what Richard sounded like, based on his letters).  Here’s his skull, an early painting, and then the reconstruction based on his remains:

_65682907_richardcomp

Reconstruction based on skull:

uni_leicester_facial_reconstruction

Here’s a fascinating video showing how it was done:

Now, what about Jesus? Without a skull, what could they discern what he looked like? Well, they did something dumb, but it’s the best a believer can do. Christianity Today reports excitedly:

With this in mind, the research team acquired three well-preserved skulls from Jerusalem in Israel, where Jesus lived and preached.

Medical artist Richard Neave from The University of Manchester in England then took charge of evaluating the skulls. Using special computer programmes, his team was able to re-create the muscles and skins overlaying the skulls.

The skulls, however, did not provide two key pieces of information about Jesus’ appearance: his hair and his skin colour. To be able to determine these, the researchers analysed drawings found in various archaeological sites in Israel.

The research team ultimately concluded that Jesus had dark eyes, and was bearded following Jewish tradition.

As regards the length of Jesus’ hair, the researchers deviated from the common belief that Christ had long, straight hair. Instead, they assumed that Jesus Christ had short hair with tight curls, based on their analysis of the Holy Bible. [JAC: I don’t think the Holy Bible tells us anything about how Jesus’s hair looked!]

Well that’s certainly convincing, isn’t it? The chance that Jesus, if he really existed, looked like an amalgam of three random skulls dug up in Jerusalem (dates not given), is about nil. Nevertheless, they produced the image given below, which links to the AOL video (click on screenshot:

Screen Shot 2015-12-15 at 6.49.08 AM
What Jesus looked like!!!

Now who does that remind you of? I’ll let readers guess. Not only did they reconstruct the adult Jesus, but they also managed to reconstruct the 12-year-old Jesus, the one who confounded the temple Rabbis and went about his father’s work. To do that, they used the image from the bogus Shroud of Turin and then computer enhanced it. Here he is:

Screen Shot 2015-12-15 at 7.18.06 AM
Adolescent Jesus!!

I am SO convinced! But that’s going to cause a lot of consternation for Christians who were brought up thinking that Jesus looked Aryan, like this:

jesus-337x450

I mean, who would ever have thought that Jesus looked like a Jew from Palestine?

I’m not surprised that The Christian Post would claim that this dubious methodology can give us any idea of what Jesus looked like, but what disturbs me is how credible they (and AOL) are about thinking they have any meaningful result. The Christian Post argues that we have actually gained some information from this analysis (my emphasis in following):

For Christians, what Jesus Christ may have looked like has been a mystery. The New Testament of the Holy Bible does not provide any detailed description of Jesus Christ, nor have any drawings of Him been discovered. As a result, Christ has been depicted in various appearances by people from different times and cultures.

Fortunately, science may have found a way for Christians to finally find an answer to the age-old question of how Jesus Christ looks like.

Of course, for them it’s a given that a Jesus-person actually existed, so half the problem is solved right there. Then assume that he was, as the New Testament tells us, a Middle Eastern Jew (of course the Bible gives no description of Jesus), and you’re 3/4 of the way there. The rest is commentary—or rather, credulousness.

h/t: Jonathan S.