Link Tiger

  • nature made red the sexiest color around
  • Old School trivia. Looking forward to Old School Dos.
  • Pix3l 4r+!

  • I want to be here. The only sign of humanity will be the blurry bridge of my nose.
  • It is a fate foretold in Idiocracy.
  • Richard Parker was named after an Edgar Allan Poe character from The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket (1838). The book tells of four shipwrecked men who, after many days’ privation, drew lots to decide who should be killed and eaten. The cabin boy, named Richard Parker, draws the short straw and is eaten. Tales of cannibalism by shipwrecked sailors were not uncommon in the 19th century, but oddly enough, 46 years after Poe’s story was published, the very events Poe wrote about would happen in reality. Captain Dudley and three sailors were stranded in a skiff in the Pacific after the sinking of their yacht Mignonette on the way to Australia. They are forced to eat one of the party to survive, and feast on his body for 4 days — a sailor boy named Richard Parker.
  • Real Life Richard Parkers swim straight into your terror nook!
  • Stalin for the three!

  • -hopes -dreams
  • America in the 40’s. A simpler time.

Join the Conversation

1 Comment

  1. Not the greatest article on red. Are they saying primates evolved the ability to see red so that they could spot berries from far away or what? These things are often touted like software features, but that’s not how it works in evolution. The real question we rarely see answered by these people is why species A evolved the trait and not species B. Added complexity is usually a disadvantage unless it adds something very useful. Seems to me it would be pretty darn cool for all species to be able to see red stuff, so the question is why we can do it and why species B, C, and D can’t. I love when I read the argument that goes something like this… “The female tufted muskrat has gradually evolved larger tufts because it appears that males prefer larger tufts.” It doesn’t work that way. Evolution selects for productive traits, so you can’t say that women have breasts because men like breasts. Women have breasts so they can have babies, and evolution tells men to prefer women who can raise babies. But who knows what LiveScience magazine is. It could be a spamblog for all I know (awkward cough). To be an elitist intellectual and properly defend my position I’d have to read the actual journal article, and what kind of self-respecting American with American Idol reruns to watch would ever do that crap?

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *