Comments(1)

|

E-mail

|

Print

Do we really need a study to tell us that most experienced drivers would fail their written tests if forced to take it again? Probably not.

In fact, just last night I parked my car in what I considered to be a respectable distance from a fire hydrant, but my friend was convinced that the parking spot wasn’t legal. How far away does one have to park from a hydrant to avoid a ticket? Neither of us knew, and after a brief argument over whether it was 10 or 20 feet away (by the way, it’s 15), we decided to find a new place to park just to be safe.

But I did obtain a near-perfect score on my written driver’s test only six years ago. How? I skimmed through the whole book right before my test, memorizing the numbers well enough to pass the test but forgetting them as soon as I traipsed out of the DOL with my shiny new license in hand. And I’m guessing I’m not the only one.

A study conducted by LeaseTrader.com found that around 75 percent of experienced drivers would fail their written drive test if it was administered randomly — and I’d guess you aren’t shocked to hear that.

I’m also guessing it won’t shock you that there was not a single perfect score on any of the 500 tests given. And it won’t shock you that that drivers with more than 20 years of experience scored an average of 46 percent on a ten-question driving quiz. It probably also won’t shock you that a longer time spent driving correlates with a lower score on a hypothetical drive test.

But here’s another thing that won’t shock you: I was a terrible driver at 16, and not in the typical reckless teenager way — I just didn’t know what I was doing. I may have known the specific rules of the road, but a conceptual understanding of driving doesn’t help much when you’re actually behind the wheel.

So failed tests or not, I think most of us would take someone with 15 or more years of driving experience than a technically savvy 16-year-old any day.

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

Jan and Dean may have had two girls for every boy, but what about eight?

That’s what SugarSugar.com promises, a site that unabashedly promotes itself as the place “where romance meets finance.”  The site explains further,

SugarSugar.com is for generous men looking to spoil, and dynamic women looking for financial support with bills, or who just need some excitement in life! Started by a real sugar baby, SugarSugar.com only accepts true, proven sugar daddies and sugar babies, and provides a staff of sugar dating experts to help you find the perfect mutually beneficial arrangement.

And since there are eight times as many “sugar babies” as sugar daddies, guys are  promised the chance to hook up with plenty of women — if they’re willing to fork out the cash.

The site has been around for a while, but the recently approved “Sugar Lifestyle” iPhone app will make it even easier to connect those with deep pockets with those with deep financial needs, Nerve reports.

How did Sugar Lifestyle pass the notoriously stringent app-screening process? Maybe the folks at Apple are simply happy to promote capitalism in all aspects of life — even the social realm. The iPhone is all about connecting people, right?

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

Long-distance relationships suck, right? Luckily for those with loves in far-off lands, a new invention might make things a bit easier — that is, if you can stand to use it.

Soon, you may be kissing your distant beau via the Internet, courtesy of the Kajimoto Laboratory at the University of Electro-Communications in Japan, DigiInfo TV reports.

The device is supposed to simulate the feelings of kiss by recording one user’s tongue movements and reciprocating them to another user, who can be any number of miles away. And if you’re already feeling weird about this idea, just wait until you hear how it works.

The kiss simulator is a small box with a rod sticking out of it. To make it work, you rotate the rod with your tongue, and its movement is mirrored in the other device. Apparently, the two devices together effectively simulate the feeling of being kissed.

But it sounds like a pretty bad kiss to me. Or at least a pretty weird one.

And that’s not all. Researchers hope to create an even more realistic kiss simulator that would not only recreate users’ tongue movement, but also would simulate their breath patterns, taste, and tongue moisture. Is it just me, or does the device sound even grosser with each new advancement?

Of course, I could just be old-fashioned. Check out the video below and decide for yourself if cyber smooching is the next big thing in dating.

Comments(2)

|

E-mail

|

Print

John Jacobsen is at it again — this time with “Double Dream Feet,” the sequel to his viral dance video “Double Dream Hands.”

Hey, if it worked for his hands, why not for his feet too?

Jacobsen posted his new video on YouTube earlier this month, saying “I think it’s even catchier than the original.” Check it out:

But is it just me, or does Jacobsen have a lot more zeal in his first video?

If nothing else, the Double Dream series speaks to how the Internet has made public some things that really should remain private. But if you’re feeling it, there’s more Double Dream splendor — including shirts — at Jacobsen’s Web site.

Comments(1)

|

E-mail

|

Print

Getty Images

She’s the emblematic toy for young girls; she’s the source of many feminist and health advocacy groups. Barbie is a toy whose controversies are as extensive as her résumé (my favorite Barbie growing up was a vet).

Today the controversial doll made headlines once again after Galia Slayen published an account of the six-foot-tall Barbie replica she made to raise awareness about eating disorders through The Huffington Post.  Slayen said that as a seven-year-old she viewed Barbie as the representation of  “beauty, perfection and the ideal for young girls around the world.”

To make a statement about Barbie’s unrealistic figure, Slayen decided to construct a life-size replica of Barbie to see what a full sized representation of the doll would look like. You can see pictures of the replica here.

Now, if you’re a bit thrown off by the proportions of the model to the actual doll, you’re not alone. Let’s first give Slayen her credit: the replica’s head is not to scale; she says in her article that it was taken from a toy meant for brushing Barbie’s hair so that her model would have the characteristically perfect Barbie face. That explains the replica’s tiny head, but what of the rest of its proportions?

Barbies are often cited as, if blown up to real life, having measurements of 5’9″ with a 39″ bust, an 18″ waist, and 33″ hips, according to Slayen’s post. That’s the model she used in constructing her Barbie replica.

But Barbies today don’t look like they did back when they first debuted — they were given larger waists and smaller hips in the ’90s — and I’m not sure today’s Barbies would be quite so disproportionate. Barbie may be incredibly slender, she may be graciously endowed in the chest, but the picture to the left of Barbie at the 2009 “Barbie Fashion Show” doesn’t look as unrealistic as Slayen’s model suggests.

Let’s do the math here. According to this sewing Web site, which provides measurements for those who wish to make their own doll clothes, Barbie dolls are 12″ tall. They have a 6″ chest, a 3.75″ waist and 5″ hips. Unrealistic, sure. But just how unrealistic?

Take me, for instance.My height is 5’10″ — tall, yes. But fake? Not at all. To have the same measurements as Barbie does at my height, I’d have to have roughly a 35″ chest, a 22″ waist and 30″ hips. And frankly, that’s never going to happen. But speaking as someone who had an entire box of Pizza Rolls for dinner last night, I don’t think Barbie is as far from reality as some people would suggest. In the spirit of making  a point, I’ll stoop so low as to give you my measurements: 33″-23″-”34″. Obviously I’m no Barbie — it’s physically impossible for me to achieve those measurements and still be healthy, and I have no desire to do so. But in fairness to the doll, Slayen’s 39″ bust matched with an 18″ waist isn’t an entirely accurate scale.

I’m not saying that Barbie is by any means a realistic model or an ideal that girls and women should strive for, because she isn’t. I just want to point out that she’s not quite as unrealistic as some people argue. Toys should by no means promote negative body image in young children, and since Barbie may do that, I’d welcome a more realistic body type for the doll — but it seems that Barbie’s reputation is a bit exaggerated.

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

You may call it the end of an era; you may say it’s a move that’s long overdue. Either way, ABC’s cancellation of two of its iconic soap operas — “One Life to Live” and “All My Children” — raises questions about the future of television.

ABC plans to replace these shows, which debuted in the last ’60s and early ’70s, with lifestyle oriented programming that may be more appealing to contemporary viewers. It seems that the days of soap operas dominating the daytime airwaves are soon coming to an end.

These leaves only one question: which of these four remaining soaps will be the next to go? What do you think?

“General Hospital” on ABC

“The Young and the Restless” on CBS

“Days of Our Lives” on NBC

“The Bold and the Beautiful” on CBS

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

As a professor, it’s probably hard to make certain topics interesting and engaging for students. One such topic? The application of Platonic and Hegelian ethics to business.

Stifle that yawn. What if this lecture included strippers who gave lap dances to willing students as the professor taught? I’m guessing there wouldn’t be much snoring or in-class Facebooking during that class.

La Salle University is currently investigating claims that professor Jack Rappaport used exactly this approach in conducting a seminar on business ethics last month, CBS 6 reports. Students paid $150 to attend the seminar and received school credit for their time.

Whether the claims are true, it’s clear  from the professor grading site RateMyProfessors.com that Rappaport is perceived as an unconventional professor. One student wrote on the site, “Extremely strange man. loves gambling, horse racing and strip joints. talks about all of the above all the time. doesn’t like to teach. smart man about stats. easy A.”

Another wrote, “Great professor once you get accustomed to his quirky ways.” Quirky indeed.

Rappaport has been suspended while the university investigates the allegations further. Meanwhile, I’m left to ponder exactly how strippers relate to Platonic and Hegelian ethics — although maybe I missed something in my philosophy courses.

Or maybe it’s just a business major thing.