Groundbreaking - and heartwarmingly unessential - research done by University of Central Florida physics professor Costas Efthimiou has attempted to confirm what a generation of suicide girls has always feared - that vampires do not exist.

His reasoning? On Jan 1, 1600, the human population was just over 530 million people. If one vampire existed on that day and bit one person per month, and then each new vampire also bit one person per month, by 1605 the entire planet would be nothing except vampires.

Now, I am okay with there being no vampires, though I think the world would be poorer without that cinema classic, Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter.

And, without vampires, I would not be able to spend 4 seconds scouring the internet and find pictures like this:

So we can’t just let someone claim they have wiped out a millenium of folklore by doing simple ( very simple ) math. First, let’s deal with the premise behind his numbers. Professor Efthimiou’s research assumes that each vampire bite results in another vampire being created. People, if there’s one thing I know, it’s vampires ( and Thai transvestites, but hey, that is a post for another time ) and I need only point you to the definitive work on the matter, Buffy The Vampire Slayer, to state unequivocally that vampires don’t always create more vampires. They only create vampires out of people they really like, or who have waistlines like Vampira:

Yes, she looks as all women should look; like a sexy, zombie skeleton.

Additionally, back in 2000, in the British series Ultraviolet, it was clarified that vampires wouldn’t feed themselves to extinction any more than we would keep on killing buffalo until they were almost gone.

This was on TV, people. If you can’t believe what you see on TV, I can’t reason with you.

Professor Efthimiou’s simple and surprisingly jingoistic math and logic errors mean that there is still at least some statistical chance that vampires could exist. However, there is also some statistical chance I am a Chinese jet pilot. Yet, since the chance exists that vampires are roaming the earth, it can’t hurt to have a vampire slayer handy.

Everyone goes for Buffy. I’d rather have a little Faith.

Teenage Scientists Have Redefined Sex In Order To Have Less Of It

We’ve talked about this before. Not only do I think kids today are smarter than we ever were, I pretty much can’t wait for them to run the world. Nothing … and I mean nothing … in the corporate world compares to trying to get laid as a teenager. And not only are kids today having sex like cocaine-fueled bunnies, they are convincing researchers they’re having less of it. That, my friends, is scientific brilliance.

But there’s confusion in the scientific ranks about all of this and I will tell you why; it’s because teenagers are so smart they redefined sex to fool researchers so they can have more of it. First, the data. Item 1: a new study found that students who think about sex and listen to music about sex actually have more sex than other students.

How can that be true? I thought about sex all of the time as a teenager and I can assure you that thinking about sex - and I even went so far as to post pictures of mostly-naked girls in my bedroom as a hint - actually did less to make real naked women appear.

This is why scientists were secretly happy when well-meaning teachers put sex education in the curriculm. Nothing makes it easier to get laid than showing girls what they would be doing if they were ‘grown-ups’ - that is the kind of subtle peer pressure we could never have dreamed up. Thanks National Education Association!

And yet, it has worked perfectly for teenagers who get to have buckets of pre-marital sex and blame us if it goes badly. But wait for Item 2 - another study says that students are having a lot less sex than they used to have.

How can they both be true? Science will tell you how. Because kids may be book dumber than they used to be, but they are a heck of a lot street smarter.

We can have studies that give opposite results due to the problem of calibration. What do I mean? The second study uses 1991 as the reference year and, as everyone knows, that was the year before the election of President Bill Clinton. Now, this site is about science, not politics, but scientists will go on record as saying they like Bill Clinton for the same reason students taking surveys about sex do; he redefined what sex means. The study says in 1991 54.1% of students were having sex but today, even with all of that music in the first study and free internet porn, only 46.8% of students are having sex.

How is this possible? It must mean that sex education really works, right? Well, no, it means that the one time teenagers listened to their elders, it was when the President told them some kinds of sex weren’t really sex. In the 1991 study, it was sex if it involved two people and orgasms. In the intervening 15 years it changed so that it isn’t sex if you don’t know the girl’s name until your sixth orgasm. That means I was a virgin before I met Lady Scientist.* No wonder Paris Hilton thinks she is celibate.

I know this all sounds a little confusing. Given this new paradigm you probably want to know what the current definition of ’sex’ is, in case you have to take a survey. Well, it depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is.

Conclusion: Not only do I think the future is safe in the hands of such smart kids, I am cashing in my 401K. I think my Social Security will be worth millions in their capable hands and I’d like to buy a big trampoline for the yard right now.

*That’s right, you took my flower. Now bake me a pie.

Nothing drives me crazier than bad science which gets published in big forums as reliable. No, I don’t mean the silliness they publish as science on ScienceBlogs.com. I mean actual science, only badly done, and this one published in a news service.

This German study says redheads get the most sex, not blondes. Now, common sense tells you this isn’t true because, as all scientists know, blondes rule.

Heck, my awareness of this fact is so keen I have developed some sort of allergy and/or eye affliction that prevents me from even seeing brunettes.*

But let’s not use me as an example, let’s approach this scientifically.

(more…)

WorldNetDaily is outraged at the modern culture of promiscuity that is exemplified by the number of female teachers seducing their young male science students. Yes, the cockblockers in some newspaper are trying to make it harder for you to get laid. As if getting laid in high school isn’t already difficult enough they want to take teachers out of the dating pool. Now, we can’t all be lucky enough to have Pamela Rogers as a teacher:

Click here to see the best video any teacher outside a Van Halen video ever made. Fortunately WorldNetDaily publishes the whole list of teachers who will have sex with students in one easy-to-read compilation. So, young science students, you know where to move. Thank me later.

WorldNetDaily is outraged at the modern culture of promiscuity that is exemplified by the number of female teachers seducing their young male science students.

Yes, the cockblockers in some newspaper are trying to make it harder for you to get laid. As if getting laid in high school isn’t already difficult enough they want to take teachers out of the dating pool.

Now, we can’t all be lucky enough to have Pamela Rogers as a teacher:

(more…)