Population Statistic: Read. React. Repeat.
Saturday, October 24, 2021

block-by-blockNothing says “girly geek” quite like this homemade dress, no doubt inspired by countless hours of Tetris-playing. Frenetic block-dropping never looked so fashionable!

(Via dustbury, who I’m betting saw the same tweet that I did on this)

by Costa Tsiokos, Sat 10/24/2009 07:20 PM
Category: Creative, Fashion, Videogames, Women
| Permalink | Trackback | Feedback (1)


We’re fairly infested with ladybugs around here. I don’t mind one or two crawling about, but no joke, I’m running across groups of them everyday.

I’ve found that the best way to dispose of them is to vacuum them up with a Dustbuster, with the proper narrow-slotted attachment. That way, you avoid having to swat them or scoop them up, which necessitates having to touch them, which means you wind up with their foul-smelling, defense-mechanism odor on you.

What’s the deal with such a stench coming out of a such daintily-named insect, anyway? Seems incongruous. I had suspected that this was an instance of contradictory naming: Giving an appealing name to something that’s otherwise repellent, along the lines of the Iceland-Greenland historical misnomering.

For that to be the case, there’d have to be a corresponding nice-smelling bug with an odious name. I instantly thought of the stinkbug as the likeliest candidate. But no such luck — turns out that that critter is appropriately named for the smelly secretions it emits.

But not the ladybug. I guess it lucked out in the zoological PR game.

by Costa Tsiokos, Sat 10/24/2009 05:23 PM
Category: History, Science, Wordsmithing
| Permalink | Trackback | Feedback


If you subjected your newborn to hours of Disney’s “Baby Einstein” videos, and years later wound up with a straight-C student, you’re due for some money back:

Last year, lawyers threatened a class-action lawsuit for unfair and deceptive practices unless Disney agreed to refund the full purchase price to all who bought the videos since 2004. “The Walt Disney Company’s entire Baby Einstein marketing regime is based on express and implied claims that their videos are educational and beneficial for early childhood development,” a letter from the lawyers said, calling those claims “false because research shows that television viewing is potentially harmful for very young children.”

The letter cited estimates from The Washington Post and BusinessWeek that Baby Einstein controlled 90 percent of the baby media market, and sold $200 million worth of products annually.

The letter also described studies showing that television exposure at ages 1 through 3 is associated with attention problems at age 7.

In response, the Baby Einstein company will refund $15.99 for up to four “Baby Einstein” DVDs per household, bought between June 5, 2004, and Sept. 5, 2009, and returned to the company.

Sixteen bucks? I’m sure parents were counting on all that video exposure paying itself back when Junior earned a full-ride scholarship to college. Therefore, I say that Disney pony up the cash equivalent of a four-year tuition bill to some Ivy League school. Call it a “genius grant” settlement. It’ll end up being the smartest move those brain-dead parents ever made…

by Costa Tsiokos, Sat 10/24/2009 04:44 PM
Category: Business, Society, TV
| Permalink | Trackback | Feedback