Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Parasites Makes Us Dumber or Sexier

Posted by Zonk on from the that-explains-hollywood-zing dept.

odie_q writes "It has long been known that the Toxoplasma gondii parasite alters its host's behavior, but now it seems the way it alters it depends on the sex of the host. From the article: 'A common parasite can increase a women's attractiveness to the opposite sex but also make men more stupid, an Australian researcher says ... Infected men have lower IQs, achieve a lower level of education and have shorter attention spans. They are also more likely to break rules and take risks, be more independent, more anti-social, suspicious, jealous and morose, and are deemed less attractive to women. On the other hand, infected women tend to be more outgoing, friendly, more promiscuous, and are considered more attractive to men compared with non-infected controls.'"

174 of 240 comments (clear)

  1. Re:So long, Saddam you worthless shit by Scoria · · Score: 5, Funny

    Clearly, this is a textbook case of toxoplasmosis. You should keep your hands out of the litter box.

    --
    Do you like German cars?
  2. Finally! by edwardpickman · · Score: 4, Funny

    A scientific explaination of Jocks and blondes.

    1. Re:Finally! by ehrichweiss · · Score: 1

      Did no one read this a few months ago when it was originally published? If that weren't enough apparently it's been "news" for over 2 years because, from TFA, "Revised September 20, 2004".

      Slow news week here too?

      --
      0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
    2. Re:Finally! by ehrichweiss · · Score: 1

      Here's the earliest citation of it I can find from 1999:
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml;js essionid=0KTO1YEKMW1ABQFIQMGCFFOAVCBQUIV0?xml=/con nected/1999/06/24/ecnpara24.xml

      --
      0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
  3. Ah HA! by Terminal+Saint · · Score: 5, Funny

    So THAT's what happened to me. Suddenly everything makes sense, and it's all Smokey's fault.

    --
    It's sad when choosing an installation directory on your own qualifies you as an "advanced user."
  4. Duh by Timesprout · · Score: 1, Funny

    Me hate stupid article. Me go fly off tall building now.

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
    1. Re:Duh by EinZweiDrei · · Score: 1

      Me am Superman!

      Lo-is!

      --
      Perhaps life really is full of possibilities.
  5. thought this was interesting by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    combined with the extremely high incidence of human infection in both developing and developed countries

    fits with old "hot blooded" stereo types.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    1. Re:thought this was interesting by Nulagrithom · · Score: 1

      You, Mr. Racism Comment Accusing Sir, clearly do not know what you are talking about. I found no racist remarks in the preceeding comment.

  6. Pish Tosh by Senjutsu · · Score: 3, Funny

    The whole thing sounds like a load of cat crap to me.

    1. Re:Pish Tosh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      its a well known fact that the sexier the woman, the dumber the guys will act.

      as for a woman being more promiscuous, that's bogus unless these parasites avoid married women as tenaciously as their husbands do.

    2. Re:Pish Tosh by mojine · · Score: 1

      Toxoplasma sounds a lot like .... BEER!

      --
      "It's not how many people I've killed - it's how I get along with the ones that are still alive."
  7. Parasite? by Stephan+Seidt · · Score: 3, Funny

    They are also more likely to break rules and take risks, be more independent, more anti-social, suspicious, jealous and morose, and are deemed less attractive to women.

    Hum, if you add "addicted to an internet news site" it would perfectly match the Slashdot syndrome.

    1. Re:Parasite? by arun_s · · Score: 4, Funny
      A common parasite can increase a women's attractiveness to the opposite sex but also make men more stupid
      So that's what they're calling alcohol these days, is it?
      --
      I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
    2. Re:Parasite? by linuxmop · · Score: 1

      I think you'll find that being smart, working hard in school, and learning valuable job skills is hardly risk-taking behavior. Most Slashdotters are anything but risk takers.

  8. Nah, would it? by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Funny

    Do you think HR will buy my parasite excuse for what I did to that girl? I know where to get a phony doctor note.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
    1. Re:Nah, would it? by bgzerolimit · · Score: 1

      let me know if it works

  9. What are the odds... by css-hack · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What are the odds that guys with low IQs, short attention spans, and an affinity for risks are just more likely to eat undercooked meat, and that the more outgoing promiscuous women catch it because of them.

    1. Re:What are the odds... by HappyEngineer · · Score: 1

      The article states that mice alter their behavior when exposed to the parasite. They then alter their behavior back when treated with drugs that kill the parasite.

      --
      Cow Cube
    2. Re:What are the odds... by Nirvelli · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't think it's just undercooked meat those people are eating:

      "A Toxoplasma infection occurs by:

      * Accidentally swallowing cat feces..."

    3. Re:What are the odds... by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Unfortunately it's true. What happens is, cats can carry the parasite on their fur from contact with feces, then brush up or rub against something you touch. Example, cat wipes its parasites off on your couch. You sit down unaware it did that. Your hand touches the couch, picks up some very small toxoplasmosis eggs; you sit there watching TV, eating popcorn, not having washed your hands. You've been pwned by the parasite. Worse, very worse, is that small children can get it by touching the cute kitty then sticking their fingers in their mouth. Cats are a big vector for this.

      I believe that antiparasitic drugs can't cross the blood-brain barrier and kill the parasites in your brain, only in other parts of the body. So you can get this creepy parasite and be stuck for life with it breeding inside your brain. This is why I just don't put up with cats in the household. The risk is too high, the reward too small.

      And finally, if I wanted a brain parasite sucking out my intelligence, I'd learn .NET programming.

    4. Re:What are the odds... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      and that the more outgoing promiscuous women catch it because of them.

            Because you can't get toxo from another human? Unless of course, that human is your mother and you're in her womb.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    5. Re:What are the odds... by oohshiny · · Score: 1
      The Wikipedia article on toxoplasmosis puts this pretty well:

      Although the pathogen has been detected on the fur of cats, it has not been found in an infectious form, and direct infection from handling cats is generally believed to be very rare.


      So, you're not likely to get the parasite from touching everyday objects.
    6. Re:What are the odds... by mrtrumbe · · Score: 5, Informative

      Sorry, bad formatting, let's try this again...

      How do you like your steak? Unless your answer is "well done", you are at greater risk for toxoplasmosis than any cat owner.

      From wikipedia: "The most common means of transmission to humans is raw or undercooked meat."

      Further, based on research it is *extremely* unlikely that you could pick up this parasite from casual contact with cats. Handling cat feces and not washing your hands? Sure. Petting a cat? No way.

      From wikipedia: "Although the pathogen has been detected on the fur of cats, it has not been found in an infectious form, and direct infection from handling cats is generally believed to be very rare."

      Further, cats must contract the disease from somewhere and are only infectious for a brief period right after contracting the disease. Which means that indoor cats that don't have access to infected prey can't get the disease (except by other transmission methods which are the same for humans). Or, if your cat already has toxoplasmosis, it means that it can't transmit the parasite to you (except for that brief period right after infection.

      From wikipedia: "Cats excrete the pathogen in their faeces for a number of weeks after contracting the disease, generally by eating an infected rodent. Even then, cat faeces are not generally contagious for the first day or two after excretion, after which the cyst 'ripens' and becomes potentially pathogenic. Studies have shown that only about 2% of cats are shedding at any one time, and that shedding does not recur even after repeated exposure to the parasite."

      Further, the disease *is* treatable. The cysts are resistant to common forms of treatment for parasites (antibiotics). However, there are treatments available which seem to eliminate the cysts.

      From wikipedia: "The antibiotic atovaquone has been used to kill Toxoplasma cysts in situ in AIDS patients.[3] In mice, a combination of atovaquone with clindamycin seemed to optimally kill cysts."

      Here is a link to wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxoplasmosis

      Every time a toxoplasmosis article comes up, someone will make a post like this, saying that *for them* cat ownership is simply too risky. This, of course, completely ignores the reality of the situation, where cat ownership is actually far less risky than eating, where mishandling of food or "undercooked" meat (may I be the first to say, yum!) are far more likely to score you an infectious parasite.

      Please inform yourself and stop spouting this trollish bullshit.

      Taft

    7. Re:What are the odds... by GIL_Dude · · Score: 1

      Maybe the researchers should infect themselves and see? Who knows, maybe they will prove it to be a new weight loss regimen...

    8. Re:What are the odds... by Cocoshimmy · · Score: 1

      Why would someone suffering with the symptoms you describe above be more likely to eat raw meat than anyone else?

      Lots of normal and intelligent people don't get their steak well done but rather medium well, rare or blue (raw). Also, many people normal people eat sushi.

      Besides, as someone already mentioned, the symptoms show up after one has been infected and one's behaviour reverts back to normal once the parasite has been killed.

    9. Re:What are the odds... by mrtrumbe · · Score: 1
      It is invalid logic to reason that the risk is greater from eating raw steak than from handling a cat, so that handling cats is not of concern. Both are of concern.

      Whaaa? Based on research, undercooked meat is the most common transmission vector for the disease. This isn't a guess, it's a fact. Also a fact: unless you handle cat feces, you have almost no chance of getting the disease from a cat. Let me quote this again: "Although the pathogen has been detected on the fur of cats, it has not been found in an infectious form, and direct infection from handling cats is generally believed to be very rare."

      This has been substantiated by research, testing the fur of infected cats for infectious material both in and out of the infectious stage of the disease. They have found no evidence that cats are infectious outside of their feces.

      So, yes, you are right: it is *possible* to get this disease through contact with cats (specifically through contact with their fecal matter). However, it is much more likely that a person would get the disease through a much more common activity: eating. Not only is undercooked meat a danger (anything under well done), but also potentially vegetables. Rodents, cats and other animals that rummage through a garden could contaminate the soil. If those vegetables aren't fully washed or cooked, it is possible to get it from your garden. Hell, you could get it even if you didn't clean yourself thoroughly after contact with infected soil.

      It all comes down to probability. There are *many* ways to contract this parasite. The most common way has nothing to do with cats. Cats themselves pose almost no risk if their litter is properly handled. Further, indoor cats have almost no chance of contracting the parasite due to a lack of infected prey. It is highly unlikely that you could ever really eliminate all possible causes of the disease, especially if you ever let others prepare your food (IOW: eat out at restaurants--cross-contamination in the kitchen is a bitch, read "Kitchen Confidential" if you don't believe me). Why would you get rid of cats when there are so many other risk factors that you can't eliminate? It is just senseless, or to use your words, invalid logic. If you really wanted to reduce your chances you would give up meat, never garden, wash and cook your produce, and never let others prepare your food. Are you really willing to make such sacrifices for a parasite that *might* effect your behavior but is still pretty treatable? Seems silly to me.

      About the wikipedia article: it is quite well referenced. If you question the veracity of the statements on the page, follow the references and see for yourself. a) parasite causes brain lesions

      I'm not sure where you got this from. In all of my reading on this parasite, I have never seen anything indicating that they cause lesions. Reference?

      4) Papers indicate that the human immune system keeps the parasite 'under control' but do not say that it eliminates the parasite completely. So what happens to a person when the immune system is weakened by a bad case of the flu or anything else? Do infected people see a flareup of the parasite, but never realize that is going on?

      You misunderstand the lifecycle of the parasite. Once past the infectious stage, sometimes the parasite goes into muscle and brain tissue and becomes a cyst. The immune system basically can do nothing about these cysts. The cysts then grow, caused by the parasite reproducing, then burst releasing tachyzoites into the blood and surrounding tissue. Left alone, these tachyzoites would become new cysts. However, the immune system attacks these tachyzoites, eliminating most of them before they can become cysts.

      Since the cysts are what is believed to cause altered behavior in mammals a weakened immune system wouldn't let the parasite effect our behavior more. If the timing were bad and a cyst popped when your immune system was down, it could cause more cysts to form. Ho

    10. Re:What are the odds... by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 1
      My point was your claim was that undercooked meat was far more important, so ignore cats. That viewpoint is illogical. A threat is still a threat even if a more common threat exists. "It all comes down to probability." Please do not apply financial industry reasoning about monetary risk to medical situations, that's not entirely valid.

      Here's just one discussion re brain lesions and the parasite: http://www.atdn.org/simple/toxo.html

      And they find toxoplasmosis associated with brain lesions in AIDs patients: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/448708_3

      Your comment: "However, the immune system attacks these tachyzoites, eliminating most of them before they can become cysts."

      That is an invalid model. The immune system does not function as effectively in all parts of the body. The question is how effective the immune system is in the brain. The blood-brain barrier prevents molecules from entering the brain that are injurious to neurons. This can include antiparasitic drugs as well as regular immune system components. The immune system chemical signalling system does not work as effectively because the brain protects against some of its components. Thus it is not reasonable to assume that the immune system can detect or attack tachyzoites within the brain. Indeed in AIDS patients apparently they are more likely to spread. I suspect that even in more commonly immune-weakened patients in the general population, for example having severe flu, that the parasite enjoys growth.

      I've seen these arguments before. Mostly from people who have some irrational dislike of cats. I can't say I really get it. But to each his own. Just so long as they don't try to shove their odd view on the rest of us, I don't give a damn.

      Indeed. Yes, saying 'I've seen it all before and it doesn't agree with my worldview, and people who disagree must be cat-hating weirdos' makes for an effective argument. But hopefully the ones with the odd view might end up living longer and healthier than the smug ones.

    11. Re:What are the odds... by mrtrumbe · · Score: 1
      My point was your claim was that undercooked meat was far more important, so ignore cats. That viewpoint is illogical.

      My point isn't ignore cats, it is: address the area of most risk. Decades of medical research have shown this to be an effective tool against the spread of disease. Addressing the most likely transmission vectors is simply logical. This isn't "financial industry reasoning about monetary risk", it is a matter of logic and disease prevention.

      That is an invalid model. The immune system does not function as effectively in all parts of the body.

      Fine. But studies of this particular parasite, with its particular life cycle, have shown that the immune system functions as I have described it. You are right that in weakened immune systems, the cysts spread faster, however treatment methods are available, as I mentioned.

      No ill will was intended. But I've heard this argument before, and it always comes down to a fixation on cats above other, more credible risks. To each his own, I guess.

      Taft

    12. Re:What are the odds... by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 1
      Claiming one's heard an argument over and over doesn't prove the argument is invalid. And so I note yet again that stating one should only address the vectors of greatest risk and ignore others of lesser probability is an economic assessment, not a full analysis taking all aspects into account. Like an HMO approach to maximizing profits. While I don't care what fools choose for themselves, I have the right to set my own level of cut-off for risk assessment to a value that helps my survival by minimizing risks. I choose not to eat uncooked meat AND avoid cat-risk.

      "Decades of medical research have shown this to be an effective tool against the spread of disease. Addressing the most likely transmission vectors is simply logical.

      Not entirely. The hidden assumption here is that it is an economics-based assessment only, cost of dealing with the risk. That's only a partial, and false, analysis then. A business analysis. There is nothing wrong with addressing the most likely risks, as long as one does not throw out the lesser risks. And that is my point. Do not throw them out.

      "Fine. But studies of this particular parasite, with its particular life cycle, have shown that the immune system functions as I have described it."

      No, the immune system only functions as you describe for the parts outside the brain. Meaning that an infection that has reached the brain resides there for a possibly long time. Your model is flawed because it does not allow for this. And it is very important. Because the hidden cost of a brain infection is far higher than the risk/cost you have assigned to it.

      "however treatment methods are available, as I mentioned."

      And as I said and will repeat as needed, they are not effective for the brain. I'm not sure which part of that isn't believed. However, I'm patient and kindly, and will be glad to explain it again as needed, and next time with references to immunology, and the time after that, too... Discussions of meningitis will clarify the issue. I hope I do not have to go into laborious detail, unless necessary.

      Say, didn't the article say "Infected men ... are also more likely to break rules and take risks, be more independent, more anti-social, suspicious, jealous and morose." Not that that has any bearing on responses in this thread. But let me offer everyone some pyrimethamine with this morning's coffee. Bon appetit.

    13. Re:What are the odds... by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Cats probably transmit another parasite on their fur in an infectious form that makes you post stuff like this in online forums.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    14. Re:What are the odds... by mrtrumbe · · Score: 1
      While I don't care what fools choose for themselves, I have the right to set my own level of cut-off for risk assessment to a value that helps my survival by minimizing risks. I choose not to eat uncooked meat AND avoid cat-risk.

      Go for it, dude. Similarly, I am free to avoid blood transfusions because of the risk of HIV infection. It would be absolutely retarded given the level of risk involved in blood transfusions, but I could do it. As I said, to each his own.

      Say, didn't the article say "Infected men ... are also more likely to break rules and take risks, be more independent, more anti-social, suspicious, jealous and morose." Not that that has any bearing on responses in this thread. But let me offer everyone some pyrimethamine with this morning's coffee. Bon appetit.

      Clever. Rude and smug....but clever.

      I don't know how to make this any more clear except by quoting from established medical research. You are just wrong. This study analyzed the effect of a combination of drugs on mice infected with different phases of toxoplasmosis:

      http://jac.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/50/6/981 .pdf

      Key quote:

      "In all models, i.e. in acute, chronic and reactivated toxoplasmosis, the combined drugs were effective in terms of both significantly increased survival and decreased brain cyst burdens compared with no treatment."

      This does not show that the immune system can effectively combat brain cysts (something I never claimed anyway--in the cyst phase, the immune system seems to be unable to effect the disease) or eliminate tachyzoites resulting from burst brain cysts (which I believe the immune system can do--your assumption that those tachyzoites remain in the brain and inaccessible to blood flow and the immune system is flawed, IMO). What this *does* show is that certain drug treatments have been successful in attacking brain cysts and significantly reducing their number. The study is interesting and is recommended reading.

      This "meta study" was used to analyze treatments for toxoplasmosis in AIDS patients:

      http://www.aidsmap.com/en/docs/659BAD5D-332A-4F8D- 9F93-8D0F470B2D32.asp

      Key quote:

      "Wallace found that Toxoplasma IgG antibody positivity did not correlate with cat ownership."

      Anyway, cheers to you. This argument is obviously not "winnable." Neither of us have budged. That's cool. I'll keep on with my "financial analysis" and you can keep up with whatever methods you are using. Happy (and parasite free) living to you.

      Taft

    15. Re:What are the odds... by bumptehjambox · · Score: 1
      "A Toxoplasma infection occurs by:

      * Accidentally swallowing cat feces..."

      People really ought to be more careful, I would assume it means handling your food after cleaning a litter box. That must skew the results a bit, as you could not have had a very high IQ to begin with.

      It does explain why some of those cat ladies are always practically begging for a shag, and I had thought they were just feeling lonely. Less than a century ago it wasn't uncommon for women to PAY for a tapeworm to be put in their system in order to lose weight. Will they be eating cat shit now, to get them in the mood?

    16. Re:What are the odds... by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 1
      It's an honor to be labeled 'smug' by someone who arrogantly labeled me a 'troll' in the earlier post that started this. Labeling is a time-tested way to improve the quality of one's arguments, I imagine.

      Toxoplasmosis has only begun to be understood a little in the last five years. Researchers are finding out disquieting things about it that I believe show it is not the insignificant risk you believe, nor as treatable. Damage to the brain is not insignificant.

      To begin, a New York Times article of June 20, 2006 (archive access requires payment though) mentions "Researchers in Sweden report that the parasite fans out through the body by manipulating mobile cells that are part of the immune system. Toxoplasma hijacks these so-called dendritic cells and makes them race around the body and ignore commands from other immune cells to commit suicide. The dendritic cells sneak the parasites into the brain and other organs, acting much like a Trojan horse." I have not yet found publication source for the Swedish results but assume I will eventually.

      This shows the immune system is not as effective against the parasite as you maintain. 50 million Americans are estimated to have toxoplasmosis to one degree or another. There is hardly insignificant risk if the numbers are that large. Do all of them eat uncooked meat? I don't think so. Therefore the cat vector is worth more attention.

      It is clear you picked and chose results to support your conclusions. Because the AIDS study site you quoted contains conflicting results. The quoted,"Wallace found that Toxoplasma IgG antibody positivity did not correlate with cat ownership." becomes meaningless if the parasite disrupts normal immune function, which would hamper antibody formation. The parasite hiding within dendritic cells would block antibody formation. Hence lack of correlation with cat ownership is not proven. This is supported by results quoted in the same article:"Porter and Sande report that the absence of detectable anti-toxoplasma IgG antibodies does not exclude the diagnosis. In their retrospectively reviewed series, 4/18 patients with pathologically proved toxoplasmosis did not have detectable antitoxoplasma antibodies." So how many of the 4 got it from cat contact? Not shown. And Wallace not solid.

      You say "What this *does* show is that certain drug treatments have been successful in attacking brain cysts and significantly reducing their number" but that is not correct. There is a difference between certain drug treatments reducing parasites in the general body, leading to fewer spreading to the brain, versus combination drugs reducing the parasite directly in the brain. The Godolfsky results quotes are interesting, but are for one patient only, and the reported "cerebellar lesions had almost completely resolved by six weeks" is misleading since the brain does not repair lesions as such, the key is what is meant by resolved. Perhaps scar tissue. The paper does not support your extracted conclusion that the drugs combos attack brain-sited parasites, merely that they attack them in the body before spreading. And "decreased brain cyst burdens compared with no treatment" merely says that if you don't treat it, it spreads to the brain. It does not say the combined regimen acts within in the brain. I trust this distinction is clear? The AIDS site research all refers to maintainance therapy, which acts to kill parasites in the body leading to fewer getting to the brain, but does not describe therapy used to kill in the brain itself.

      "your assumption that those tachyzoites remain in the brain and inaccessible to blood flow and the immune system is flawed, IMO)

      You do not understand how substances and objects are filtered at the boundaries to the brain nor how the immune system works. The IMO is just not correct. I pointed out that reading about meningitis would make this clear. Don't assume understanding of computer technology conveys authority in reasoning in a different field in which one has no background beyond reading a few papers, and misinterpreting them, and insulting people who disagree with you. You refer to 'winnable'. Is this football then, or science?

    17. Re:What are the odds... by mrtrumbe · · Score: 1
      It's an honor to be labeled 'smug' by someone who arrogantly labeled me a 'troll' in the earlier post that started this. Labeling is a time-tested way to improve the quality of one's arguments, I imagine.

      It would seem we share the same penchant for labeling. From a previous post of yours: "But hopefully the ones with the odd view might end up living longer and healthier than the smug ones." I don't think either of us have exactly taken the higher ground here, do you?

      To counter your arguments here, I'll use the very source you quote from, the New York Times Jun 20th article. From that article:

      An infection with Toxoplasma may feel like nothing more than a mild case of the flu, and the symptoms pass once the parasite has snuggled itself away in its cysts. In later years, cysts occasionally break open, but the immune system quickly destroys most of the free parasites. The few survivors invade new cells.

      This backs up my point about a healthy immune system effectively combating the latent form of the disease. Yes, in earlier stages, it spreads through hijacking immune cells. This does not appear to continue through the entire lifespan of the parasite.

      Also from the article: "It's perfectly safe to keep a cat," [Dr. Milton M. McAllister] said. "Just keep it inside."

      Which comes back to my original point. I've never tried to claim the disease wasn't insidious or not dangerous. In fact, I know of a first hand example of how bad it can be (a friend having contracted it and having it--or his immune system--attack his retinas). My only points are that: a) cat ownership is not dangerous and b) the disease is treatable (though not able to be eliminated). Incidentally, these are the only points you haven't provided evidence to counter (outside of claiming faulty logic and disagreeing with established research).

      May I also point out that you've done an awful lot of hand waving and trying to discredit my sources (don't trust wikis!!) and logic, but have provided precious little evidence to back up any of your points. This argument is a exercise in futility. Which is exactly why I called it un-winnable. You aren't forming arguments in good faith and neither of our positions have changed (the only possible way to "win"--and I use that term loosely--an argument).

      Finally, let me say how unbelievably creepy it is to have a complete stranger looking up info about you and using that in a random online argument. From your posts:

      Don't assume understanding of computer technology conveys authority in reasoning in a different field in which one has no background...

      Please do not apply financial industry reasoning about monetary risk to medical situations, that's not entirely valid.

      My background (which is development for the financial industry--thanks for checking) has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Bringing it up in an attempt to discredit my logic and arguments is a very low form of debate. Grow up.

      I'm done. I only hope that others reading this thread (how likely is that, anyway?) will see the evidence I've posted and see the truth (as it is currently understood) about this strange parasite. Good day, sir. You can have the final word if you want it.

      Taft

    18. Re:What are the odds... by Provost+Kihofakirius · · Score: 1

      Breaking rules, taking risks, being independent and somewhat anti-social (in a bad boy way) is usually regarded as being an attractive man, amongst many women. How did they end up into a conclusion that it only makes women more attractive to the opposite sex?

    19. Re:What are the odds... by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      This is why I just don't put up with cats in the household. The risk is too high, the reward too small.
      Pussy!
      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  10. Goa'uld tag... by sadler121 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Wheres the damn Goa'uld tag when you need it?

    1. Re:Goa'uld tag... by MWoody · · Score: 4, Informative

      Saving some of us a click.

    2. Re:Goa'uld tag... by tehSpork · · Score: 1

      They don't usually live on their own, they take control of 'host' tags and use them to further their goals.

      Start searching for the names of ancient gods, such as CowboyNeal. There will you find these Goa'uld you seek. :)

  11. George W. Bush by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Funny

    Seriously. He used to be quite articulate. I just saw a youtube snippet of him talking fast, articulate, and using big words in the mid 90's. It was like a different man. Something changed him into a stubburn bumbler. Some speculate drug abuse, but everyone around him says he swore off substance abuse decades ago.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
    1. Re:George W. Bush by jovius · · Score: 1

      That's the outcome of politics.

    2. Re:George W. Bush by name*censored* · · Score: 1
      That's the outcome of politics
      So that's what they're calling alcohol these days, is it
      Aplogies to arun_s (read about 10 posts up) :)
      --
      Commodore64_love: I don't comprehend people who're so frightened of death that they'll bankrupt themselves to stay alive
    3. Re:George W. Bush by Znork · · Score: 1

      A better explanation, of course, is that he's a sock puppet. That fits the rest even better, without resorting to Bush doing a brilliant portrayal of stupid.

    4. Re:George W. Bush by Marcos+Eliziario · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As I've said here before, the similarities between Brazil's president Lula and George Bush are astoundingly big.
      Both of them find out that there's a huge proportion of their electorates that are people who don't like to read, and are resentful of intelectuals. Both of them realized that this people constitute the majority of the people of their countries. And both of them discovered that the best way to capitalize those votes was to *act* just like that people. So, whenever they are in public or TV they *intentionally* mispell words, use stupid arguments like bad-taste analogies and from time to time make some comment about how intelectuals and scientists are not really that smart. The masses exultate with that, thinking that finally they have "someone just like ourselves" in the office.
      Curiously enough, both of them have a sinister, and very inteligent figure behind them. For Bush, it's Dick Cheney, for Lula, it's José Dirceu. Those figures serve the purpose of being the resident "evil" brains to take the blame when things go wrong. After all, they are portraited as over-intelligent figures, and for the dumb masses, this is always something kind of sinister.
      Lula become president of Brasil being the leader of the workers party. Most of the college professors and intelectuals where once members of that party, so if Lula always managed to keep his leadership it's not reasonable to think he is not very, very intelligent.
      The same can be said about George Bush. It's plain fuck stupid to think that someone dumb would get this far, and it's plain fuck stupid to believe that someone that came from Yale can't spell nuclear.
      They are acting, and their acting have being very succesful so far. Everytime someone calls them dumb, they win. Because this makes their target electorate even more affectionaly bound to them, and it helps to spread the lie that they can't be really responsible for their wrongs. Everytime a comedian makes a sophisticated joke about Bush's or Lula's supposed dumbness, he/she is only contributing to the myth of "someone just like us in charge". think about it.

      --
      Your ad could be here!
    5. Re:George W. Bush by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1
      It's plain fuck stupid to think that someone dumb would get this far, and it's plain fuck stupid to believe that someone that came from Yale can't spell nuclear.
      You don't seem to be familiar with how far one can get in American society on nothing but daddy's money. As supporting evidence, I give you Paris Hilton. Keep her, please.
    6. Re:George W. Bush by Frumious+Wombat · · Score: 1

      It's been suggested that his famous train-wreck ability with language is due to the effort of deliberately being something other than what he started as. Kind of like how (allegedly) left-handers who are forced to become righties tend to stutter at the early stages. The down-homisms just aren't natural, and the fundamentalist streak means that he doesn't understand why he has to explain anything. Being forced to do both creates the bushisms.

      On the other hand, the rest seems to be the result of being a beard for the real powers, Nixon/Ford retreads Cheney and Co. I don't think we can blame the protozoans for this one.

      --
      the more accurate the calculations became, the more the concepts tended to vanish into thin air. R. S. Mulliken
    7. Re:George W. Bush by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      He accomplished most of his and the Republicans' goals, stayed in office for two terms, and did it in such a way that Republican leaders could distance themselves from him in time for the '06 and '08 elections, keeping 50% of Congress. Amazing.

      Bush himself accomplished none of those things. His handlers did all the dirty work. And his father probably had to spend quite a fortune to keep him out of prison for all his past transgressions. All Bush has to do is stand in front of the camera and read the script. You will never see the people who actually make policy. Same went for Reagan, but he was a professional actor and was much smoother at passing off the BS.

      --
      What?
    8. Re:George W. Bush by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I doubt Bush _is_ stupid or inarticulate. He does it on purpose.

      Are you saying that errors like, "to put food on our families" and "rumors on the internets" is all part of a plan?

      Stupidity appeals to Americans

      The US certainly has no monopoly on stupidity. We just happened to have a recent surge.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    9. Re:George W. Bush by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Supposedly he's still like that in a personal setting. My bet is some sort of social anxiety disorder.

      You mean he is afraid to face the people he [bleeped].

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
  12. Umm.. by adityamalik · · Score: 1

    Can I have 5 of those, please? or maybe 10...

  13. Interesting effects, interesting causes by Knutsi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I found this piece of news very interesting. Is it known how the parasite affects our behavior? If it secretes a chemical that has the effect, I'd say this could be used for treatment in a variety of medical conditions. If it "attacks" specific areas of the brain, it may reveal interesting things about it.

    Things such as this hints to how our minds work, which is possibly one of the most fascinating things in the universe (:

  14. Re: it belongs to frylock by macadamia_harold · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hey oog, make sure to give back the OoGhiJ MIQtxxXA super computer before hurling yourself off the tall building.

    --
    Push Button, Receive Bacon
  15. Beer == Parasite ??? by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 5, Funny
    'A common parasite can increase a women's attractiveness to the opposite sex but also make men more stupid,...
    I get the same parasite whenever I go to the pub.
    --
    -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    1. Re:Beer == Parasite ??? by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      No... what a stupid question.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
  16. Mod Parent +5 Funny by mikeisme77 · · Score: 1, Informative

    For those who didn't RTFA, one of the ways of catching this disease is by accidentally digesting cat feces (if the cat is effected with the bacteria). Smokey is a fairly common name for a grey cat here in the States.

    --
    Read my blog posts on usability.
    1. Re:Mod Parent +5 Funny by Five+Bucks! · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, Toxoplasma gondii is a eukaryote and is not a bacteria.

      --
      52 52'23" W 47 32'07" N
  17. Bicamerial mind breakdown by zoftie · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Maybe it is the next phase, of mind evolution? Snowcrash popularized tower of babel, where humans evolved through infection by a meta-virus, that had real life counterpart with same effects(Nam-shub evolution into real world). The virus broke down barriers between clearly separated brain parts and made them more equal in reasoning on how to behave.
    links:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Conscio usness_in_the_Breakdown_of_the_Bicameral_Mind
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_Crash

    Also if you haven't read snow crash, you must do so immediately. ;)

    1. Re:Bicamerial mind breakdown by rs232 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "The virus broke down barriers between clearly separated brain parts and made them more equal in reasoning on how to behave"

      The barriers are required for consciousness as your first link clearly describes. If you want to see what the world looks like without the barriers then injest some psilocybe. You won't actually be doing any reasoning though. The next true phase of mind evolution will be the combination of computers with the brain, as to how that will happen, I don't know.

      --
      davecb5620@gmail.com
    2. Re:Bicamerial mind breakdown by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      The next true phase of mind evolution will be the combination of computers with the brain, as to how that will happen, I don't know.

      I wonder if I'm "Vista Ready". I rue the day when they tattoo "Intel Inside" on my skull.

      --
      What?
    3. Re:Bicamerial mind breakdown by shadwstalkr · · Score: 1

      Snow Crash has some neat ideas, but it's just fiction.

  18. Yeah sure by iamdrscience · · Score: 3, Funny

    I can deal with being stupider as long as I can play the holophoner.

    1. Re:Yeah sure by Cappy+Red · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the strength of Hercules and the flexibility of Gumby combined. That's nothing to sneeze at either.

      --
      This is my sig. It's prescription, I swear. I need it for reading things... on the other side of things
    2. Re:Yeah sure by Kierthos · · Score: 1

      Gumbercules? I love that guy.

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
  19. But can we play the holophone? by Zaphod2016 · · Score: 3, Funny
    • break rules and take risks...check
    • independent...check
    • anti-social...suck it
    • suspicious...who wants to know?
    • jealous...check...but not as jealous as you
    • morose...check
    • deemed less attractive to women...posting on /. on Fri night...check


    So how come I can't play the holophone?
    --
    barack to the future?
  20. Remember, kids! by Guppy06 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Correlation != causation.

    Even since the last time this came up, I haven't seen anything done to differentiate between "symptoms of infection" and "traits of average cat owners."

    1. Re:Remember, kids! by poopdeville · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wow, thanks for the science lesson!

      Actually, real science is done by noting correlations, hypothesizing a mechanism that explains the correlation, and testing it.

      The researchers have tested the mechanism. RTFA.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    2. Re:Remember, kids! by lagfest · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't see any correlation between Crazy Cat Lady and being more attractive. So there's your proof.

    3. Re:Remember, kids! by dircha · · Score: 1

      "Correlation != causation."

      "Even since the last time this came up, I haven't seen anything done to differentiate between "symptoms of infection" and "traits of average cat owners.""

      1. Control groups (although no source is given the claims in this article).

      2. Most infections result from eating undercooked meat, not from owning cats.

      And quit with the juvenile "correlation/causation" business. Yes, if you want to be obtuse, we can never "prove" causation. But down here in the world of reality and common sense, we're pretty sure that the Sun will rise tomorrow.

      And who are you calling "kids"?

    4. Re:Remember, kids! by khallow · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, I don't see why that particular effort would help. Obviously, being a cat owner would be a risk factor (assuming you were exposed to the cat's feces during the period when it is infectious, which is a few weeks after the cat is infected, so I gather). But so is gardening or exposure to rodents and other small animals. A better comparison would be of people who are infected with toxoplasma yet who aren't cat-owners. Being a cat owner involves a complex situation (eg, economic factors like living in a place where you can have a cat).

      Further, if we're going to pull out the correlation != causation thing, we should also consider Occam's razor. What's a simpler reason for behavior differences? Infection by a parasite that is already known to modify behavior *in the same way* in mammal species or some vague effect of cat ownership (especially given that the infected population includes a lot of people who don't own cats)?
    5. Re:Remember, kids! by kfg · · Score: 1

      I haven't seen anything done to differentiate between "symptoms of infection" and "traits of average cat owners."

      I didn't own my cat, she just lived here, and it didn't make me stupid.

      All I did was let her move in and act as if she owned the joint, fed her so she wouldn't have to bestir herself by making a living, gave her affection whenever she demanded it but didn't expect any in return and cleaned up her shit after her. . .

      Oh, wait. . .

      Maybe I should go read Prachett's Lords and Ladies again.

      KFG

    6. Re:Remember, kids! by Sique · · Score: 5, Informative

      Remember, kids! RTFA!

      The article clearly states that the changed behaviour could be seen after infecting the mice with toxoplasmose and be reversed by treating the infection. So we have something that looks a lot more like a causation and less a pure correlation (with currently unknown relation).

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    7. Re:Remember, kids! by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Occam's razor. What's a simpler reason for behavior differences?

            The Pygmalion Effect

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    8. Re:Remember, kids! by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, if you want to bring up Occam's Razor, what about the explanation that the parasite merely makes both sexes stupider, and the higher attractiveness in women is because men like stupid (ditzy) women.

      Think about it.

      --
      Apology to Ubuntu forum.
    9. Re:Remember, kids! by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "The researchers have tested the mechanism. RTFA."

      I did. The causal relationship was demonstrated, but on lab rats. As far as humans are concerned, all that was done (as usual) was to find a correlation between having the parasites in your system and having certain personality traits. Things like "Does their personality change if you remove the parasites?" test was performed on the rats, but not on humans, rather it was assumed that "causal relationship with rats" == "causal relationship with humans."

    10. Re:Remember, kids! by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "Most infections result from eating undercooked meat, not from owning cats."

      Straw man. I still didn't see anything to affirm that the changes in personality were caused the parasites rather than the infection being an effect of risk-taking in the personalities in question.

      "Yes, if you want to be obtuse, we can never "prove" causation."

      On the contrary, it's been demonstrated before, only in lab rats (see how a rat acts, expose it to the parasites, see how the rat acts, kill the parasites, see how the rat acts). However, nothing similar has ever been performed with humans; the researcher is simply assuming that what goes for lab rats also goes for humans.

    11. Re:Remember, kids! by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "The article clearly states that the changed behaviour could be seen after infecting the mice with toxoplasmose and be reversed by treating the infection."

      The article never states that something similar was attempted with humans. No infestations in humans were treated during the course of this investigation.

    12. Re:Remember, kids! by khallow · · Score: 1

      How does that apply here?

    13. Re:Remember, kids! by khallow · · Score: 1

      Makes sense to me. The characterization of the effect could be mistaken in that way.

    14. Re:Remember, kids! by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      "Yes, if you want to be obtuse, we can never "prove" causation."


      On the contrary, it's been demonstrated before, only in lab rats (see how a rat acts, expose it to the parasites, see how the rat acts, kill the parasites, see how the rat acts). However, nothing similar has ever been performed with humans; the researcher is simply assuming that what goes for lab rats also goes for humans.


      Careful here. The GP was correct when he said that causation cannot be proven. There's always the problem of Humean skepticism about induction. Scientists work with the much more restricted notion of verification.

      Proof is the domain of mathematicians and philosophers.
      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    15. Re:Remember, kids! by poopdeville · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The researchers have noted that toxoplasmosis secretes domanine-like molecules in mice. It has already been established that mice and humans share receptors for this molecule. It has already been established that dopamine levels affect human behaviour and mood. Mutatis mutandis, toxoplasmosis affects human behaviour and mood.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    16. Re:Remember, kids! by Plutonite · · Score: 1

      You mean, if treated, the women start looking like shit again?

  21. Woops.... Time to get off the Toxoplasma diet by popo · · Score: 1


    And all this time I thought I was getting sexier.

    --
    ------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
  22. Ahh Toxoplasma gondii by GrumpySimon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I believe this is one of those news stories that sits around waiting for a slow news day. The original paper was released in November. It's written by Kevin Lafferty and was published in Proc. Roy. Soc. B.

    It's a really quite fascinating paper - I recommend tracking it down if you can get access. Here's how it goes: Toxoplasmia gondii is adapated to live in cats and reproduces in felid intestinal cells & is shed, encysted, in their feaces. Then it can directly infect cats who come into contact with the cysts, or it encysts in brains of smaller mammals, and moves up the food chain as they get eaten until it hits a cat, and can reproduce again.

    Fascinatingly, T.g. appears to affect rodent behavior to increase predation risk - i.e. the rodents become more active, less fearful of cat/cat smells, and have increased dopamine levels (which supposedly leads to novelty seeking behavior and neuroticism-type behaviors, or at least, they do in humans).

    Despite humans not having any major cat predators, it could still affect us as a byproduct type of thing. Particularly that whole dopamine increase - this is should increase neuroticism levels.

    So - the big question - does prevalence of T.g. correlate with cultural variation in neuroticism in humans? Lafferty finds a fairly strong correlation ( r2 of 0.38 ) between population aggregate neuroticism (as measured by the fairly standard NEO PI-R personality inventory ).

    Unfortunately I think the populations he uses for his stats are a little bit suspect (always the problem with worldwide analyses though), but it's definitely worth a read. You should also keep in mind that so far it's only an interesting correlation and not a direct demonstration that T.g. causes large scale cultural differences.

    --
    henry -- the human evolution news relay
    1. Re:Ahh Toxoplasma gondii by JKR · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Lafferty finds a fairly strong correlation ( r2 of 0.38 ) ...

      Only in the social "sciences". Anywhere else, an r2 less than 0.95 is considered unimpressive, and 0.38 would definitely be "poor".

    2. Re:Ahh Toxoplasma gondii by eeyoredragon · · Score: 1

      Slow news day indeed... this was brought quite some time ago earlier than November and talked about in a book recommended by a fellow slashdotter in the same article post: Parasite Rex (which I loved).

    3. Re:Ahh Toxoplasma gondii by Paradigma11 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      this is a field study, not an experiment!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      38% of the variance in the observered behaviour (answers in the fpi) is explained by the predictor variable.
      an r2 of 0.95 would mean, that the maximum correlation of another predictor could be 0.22 and you would have explained all human behaviour regarding the setting. think of zombie movies.

      that said, i am not a big fan of the neo-fpi. it is a questionaire which means it reports how people see themself or want other to see them. plus, it is based on classical test theory which has some major methodological issues and is outdated for more than half a century. this is something to critize the social "sciences" for, not an r2 of 0.38 :)

    4. Re:Ahh Toxoplasma gondii by OfNoAccount · · Score: 1

      Interesting. I wonder whether anyone's trialled it as a treatment for Parkinson's Disease yet?

    5. Re:Ahh Toxoplasma gondii by dasheiff · · Score: 1

      When I saw this on fark I asked my doctor, How pronouced are the behaviour changing effects actually?

      He said, If you were infected as a uterus, then very bad. If you caught it as a teenager of adult, no major sysmptoms.

      Basicly there is a reason doctors aren't actually trying to fix this.

    6. Re:Ahh Toxoplasma gondii by yali · · Score: 3, Informative

      You have been infected with a rare and deadly disease. A new drug has become available. In clinical trials, if people are left untreated (control group), only 31% survive and the rest die. If they are given the drug, 69% survive. Do you take the drug, or ignore it because its effects are "unimpressive"? Because that example expresses an effect size of r=0.38.

      The "anywhere else" you refer to is in areas of science that deal with deterministic phenomena. In many areas of social science, medicine, and other fields, the phenomena are probabilistic, and effect sizes are judged accordingly.

    7. Re:Ahh Toxoplasma gondii by karnal · · Score: 1

      Does that mean I have to have some sort of sex change?

      If you were infected as a uterus,

      eeek! You appear to have the bug!

      --
      Karnal
  23. Free parasite with every bottle. by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

    I knew there was a reason that my friends told me not to eat the tequila worm ... if only I had known.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  24. How do I get Toxoplasma? by iamnafets · · Score: 1

    # Accidentally swallowing cat feces from a Toxoplasma-infected cat that is shedding the organism in its feces. From TFA.

  25. Jesus, women are lucky by Travoltus · · Score: 3, Funny

    Is there any parasite that makes MEN more attractive?

    As if we didn't have enough biological disadvantages in the mating game, this one is nature's way of applying the final curb stomp.

    --
    --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
    1. Re:Jesus, women are lucky by TapeCutter · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Is there any parasite that makes MEN more attractive?

      Yes, but she will take all your stuff.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    2. Re:Jesus, women are lucky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Is there any parasite that makes MEN more attractive?

      Yeah, it's called World of WarCraft. Simply tell attractive females about your level 70 Paladin with a flaming sword that does +100 Bonus Damage to Demons and your courageous exploits into the Undead lands, they will flock to you like bees to honey.

    3. Re:Jesus, women are lucky by autophile · · Score: 1

      Yes, but she will take all your stuff.

      This is a cat-related article! The correct grammar is "Yes, but sheez takin' all ur stuff!"

      --Rob

      --
      Towards the Singularity.
    4. Re:Jesus, women are lucky by forkazoo · · Score: 1
      Is there any parasite that makes MEN more attractive?

      As if we didn't have enough biological disadvantages in the mating game, this one is nature's way of applying the final curb stomp.


      Yes, the parasite secretes a green substance which makes one butt cheek look unusually padded. It's called Richitosis, and you get it by having lots of money. Symptoms include driving a sports car and living in a mansion.
  26. Re:So long, Saddam you worthless shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Substitute Bush for Saddam, Bible for Koran, and Jesus for Mohammed and your post just might make sense.

  27. Where can I get it? by kjart · · Score: 4, Funny

    Based on the description, this parasite will turn that ugly girl next door into a hot, promiscuous girl who might stop pepper spraying me! Sign me up for two!

    1. Re:Where can I get it? by eugene_roux · · Score: 5, Funny

      You've already got it. That's why she's pepper-spraying you...

      --
      Part Time Philosopher, Oft Times Romantic, Full Time Unix Geek
    2. Re:Where can I get it? by residieu · · Score: 2, Funny

      Best bet is to eat an egg salad sandwich from a vending machine in a filthy truckstop bathroom.

  28. Get rid of the parasite? by Sibko · · Score: 1

    Alright, fantastic. A parasite that might be able to change my behaviour. Possibly for the worse. Naturally, I don't particularly relish the idea that there's a parasite in my brain effecting the way I think and act.

    So, assuming one has such a parasite, are there treatments to get rid of it?

    1. Re:Get rid of the parasite? by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Funny

      A parasite that might be able to change my behaviour.

            A lot of them do. For example, Enterobius vermicularis will have you scratching your butt all day and all night. I supect that this behaviour will render you definitely UNSEXY to most people, as well as rather smelly and angry :)

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  29. dupe from last year ? (don't mod up) by aepervius · · Score: 1

    I am pretty sure this is a dupe and was already discussed to death. I am trying to fight the slashdot search engine but up to now "parasite" and "toxoplasm" did not give any search result back... Maybe someone can point out what article it was ?

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  30. testosterone by Oniros · · Score: 1

    I didn't know testosterone could be spelled Toxoplasma gondii

  31. Re:Antibiotics by kfg · · Score: 1

    Your doctor gave you sugar pills.

    KFG

  32. Written by a woman? by Shadow-isoHunt · · Score: 5, Funny

    "A common parasite can increase a women's attractiveness to the opposite sex but also make men more stupid"
    What do you mean by more stupid?

    --
    www.isoHunt.com
    1. Re:Written by a woman? by NiroZ · · Score: 1

      Indeed There is even proof at wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxoplasma_gondii#Hum an_prevalence (from the article) "According to Sydney University of Technology infectious disease researcher Nicky Boulter in an article that appeared in the January/February 2007 edition of Australasian Science magazine entitled "Alley Cats & Sex Kittens", she said Toxoplama infections lead to changes depending on the sex of the infected person."

      --
      now a little to the left
    2. Re:Written by a woman? by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Funny

      There is even proof at wikipedia
      Can't resist:

            Toxo makes girls sexy - Wikipedia confirms it!

            What does netcraft have to say, btw?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  33. So it's the parasitical analoge of beer? by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

    I keep telling you people there has to be something in the water making humanity stooooopid.

    1. Re:So it's the parasitical analoge of beer? by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      I keep telling you people there has to be something in the water

            No, you're thinking of a different parasite :)

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7818640&dopt=Citation

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  34. Re:George W. Bush (completely offtopic) by Sique · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence".

    I so hoped that George W. Bush would win the 2004 elections to make sure he is still president when the failure of his presidency becomes more clear. So no one can blame the ongoing breakdown in Iraq and the reappearing Taliban in Afghanistan to a liberal and weak Democrat administration which messes anything up the Bush Administration has started.

    I was starting to wonder if the strategies of the Bush administration might just be based on complete incompetence and ignorance after them closing in on Iraq in connection to 9/11. I had a teacher who was in Iraq on a development project in the 1970ies with still some connections there, and according to her Iraq had a mainly agnostic government based on arabic-nationalist and socialist ideas (e.g. arabic nationalsocialism). Tariq Aziz, the former second man in Iraq, is a maronite christian, not a muslim after all. So all alleged connections to a fundamentalist muslim group were doubtfull at best. Saddam Hussein was trying to play the muslim card after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the demise of the Soviet Union, because Socialism was no longer fashionable, but with the Gulf War in 1992 the Muslim Card also failed because all neighboring states (both baathist/fascist like Syria and fundamentally islamic as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Sheikdoms) were telling him off.

    In the end Saddam Hussein seemed to me just a dictator which tried to cling on power with all means, and I guess he was completely unideologic except for the ideology that he was not to be toppled.

    A big hint to the complete misinterpretation of the situation in Iraq was to me that the development of the war was so different from the predictions. The South, which was considered pro-intervention and expected to greet the U.S. troups with flowers and celebration, was fighting hard, and the Sunni Triangle, which was suspected to be strongly defended and determined for a last stand, was taken within the matter of days. When the toppling of Saddam's statue in Bagdad was mainly watched with lethargy by the people (compare the video footage with that of the Berlin Wall in 1989!) and only a U.S. tank managed to pull it down finally I knew: The invasion was utterly botched, and the Iraqi population was at best waiting how it would work out in the end. The plundering and looting in the following weeks might have finally tilted the balance against the U.S., and at this very moment I was sure that the cause of "bringing democracy to the Arab world" was lost.

    It just took two hundred thousands dead Iraqis, the Abu Guraib scandal, the Guantanamo disaster and another three years of ongoing insurgence in Iraq to let the U.S. electorate figure out the same thing. And the Bush administration seems only to have changed course to avoid a complete election catastrophe in November 2006. So this movement seems not to be not based in a thinking process within the administation, but just a tactic maneuver to stay in power.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  35. If it makes you more attractive... by s-gen · · Score: 1

    ...its a symbiant not a parasite.

    So the real story here is that women have symbiants that parasitise men.

  36. DUPE by ZeroExistenZ · · Score: 1

    here you go

    Last year, someone mentioned it works by producing LSD to control the host.

    --
    I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
  37. That doesn't bode well for me... by ravenlock · · Score: 2, Funny

    I've got two cats at home and I do .NET programming at work!

    1. Re:That doesn't bode well for me... by Kierthos · · Score: 1

      So, what you're saying is you know you're infected?

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    2. Re:That doesn't bode well for me... by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 1
      Doctors are waiting to observe the '.NET programming at home' symptom before making a final diagnosis.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
  38. Are you serious? by ctid · · Score: 1

    The second link in the story is to the previous Slashdot coverage. It's not a dupe because more information is presented here.

    --
    Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
  39. Marketing challenge by OriginalArlen · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...infected women tend to be more outgoing, friendly, more promiscuous, and are considered more attractive to men

    Perhaps it's just me, but my first thought after reading the summary was that the best and brightest the world of cosmetics marketing has to offer are probably working on the advertising campaign right now. "New, from L'Oreal: toxoplasmosis, the only parasite derived from cat shit that's /guaranteed/ to make you MORE ATTRACTIVE to the opposite sex. Because you're worth it!"...

    Given the crap they already get women to shell out fifty quid for a couple of ounces, parasite-infected cat shit would be a relatively easy sell.

    --

    Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
    1. Re:Marketing challenge by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Selling the injection of a very nasty poison into your facial muscles that in fact makes you less attractive was an easy enough sell - I think you may have a winner there.

    2. Re:Marketing challenge by acherusia · · Score: 1

      Hell, they used to sell tapeworms in a pill as a guaranteed weight-loss plan. Toxoplasmosis should be easy. And I will gladly sell the right to clean out my cat's litter box to anyone who would like to catch it. Hell, I'll let them clean it out for free.

  40. Great Pickup Line by Joebert · · Score: 5, Funny

    Damn you're sexy, you have parasites don't you ?

    --
    Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
  41. FTA by eneville · · Score: 3, Informative

    It doesn't look to me as this is a terminal illness, the infection is gone in a few weeks to months, so it's hardly an explanation for the world's stupidity.

    --
    Why UNIX?
    1. Re:FTA by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 3, Insightful
      It doesn't look to me as this is a terminal illness, the infection is gone in a few weeks to months, so it's hardly an explanation for the world's stupidity.

      It can be lethal if you have a weakened immune system due to age, chemo, HIV, whatever. BTW- it may persist as a low-grade infestation even in healthy people. The same as many other infections like syphilis, Lyme Disease, and even chickenpox - the initial symptoms of infection may go away but the pathogen stays in the body and causes mayhem a few years or even decades later.

      -b.

  42. infected women tend to be more .. promiscuous by bl8n8r · · Score: 3, Funny

    I, for one, welcome our new Toxoplasmosis overlords.

    --
    boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
    1. Re:infected women tend to be more .. promiscuous by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I, for one, welcome our new...uh...new...um, hey babe! Can I pet your kitty?

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    2. Re:infected women tend to be more .. promiscuous by idkk · · Score: 1

      um ... overladies surely?

      --
      Ian D. K. Kelly

      idkk Consultancy Ltd.

      "Quality through Thought"

  43. Researchers tying one on? by frdmfghtr · · Score: 1

    Gee, this bears remarkable similarity to a guy's night out getting hammered at the local watering holes.

    --
    Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
  44. and the cure is...? by eneville · · Score: 1

    does anyone know what the name of the drug is to cure the disease... i'm sure a vast portion of the male population would like to take it... not so sure about the females...

    --
    Why UNIX?
    1. Re:and the cure is...? by eneville · · Score: 1

      This page http://www.msu.edu/course/zol/316/tgontreat.htm might shed some light on possible cure. I for one wish to be level headed, maybe that would effect my slashdot profile..

      --
      Why UNIX?
  45. Those cats! by autophile · · Score: 1

    Awesome, another thing I can blame on the cats, right next to breaking that glass and hiding the remote!

    --Rob

    --
    Towards the Singularity.
  46. Does it really affect the sexes differently? by kjcole · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Or is the behavior being interpreted differently based on gender?

    It sounds like the parasite simply amplifies the affects of certain sex hormones in both sexes, and lowers inhibitions... In civilized men, too much of a good thing. (For less civilized men, it means "Jackass: The movie".) As for women, it's hard to draw conclusions about the intelligence of someone who's "more outgoing, friendly, more promiscuous". Some would consider that to be potentially more "risky," regardless of the fact that most men like the end result.

    Since the rat study indicated that the parasite changed rat behavior to increase its own chances of survival (while putting the host rat at risk of being eaten by a cat), I wonder if the results of the behavior modification in humans could potentially result in more pregnancies and might therefore be a failed attempt by the parasite to insure survival as well.

  47. Behavioral results inconsistent with mechanism by Frangible · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If the parasite works by increasing dopamine levels in the brain, that would most certainly not decrease attention span or reaction time, it would in fact improve them, as can be seen when you take any dopaminergic drug. Higher dopamine doesn't hinder academic achievement, nor will it lower your IQ. That is ridiculous-- most of the mental benefits from cardiovascular exercise come from increased DA levels. Further, the effects of dopamine are not so sexually dimorphic in humans, the only real difference is that estrogen increases DA sensitivity. The archetypal drugs for increasing DA levels? Ritalin and Adderall.

    These are low quality studies and an abomination of science to conclude that correlation = causation. Nothing is further from the truth! The main way toxoplasma is spread in humans is in eating undercooked meat. Considering the actual effects of dopamine on the brain, doesn't it seem more likely that perhaps a low IQ, low educational achievement, and risk taking/promiscuous behavior predispose one to eat or undercook meat? But even that is untested.

  48. Tickle the Ganglion! by InnovativeCX · · Score: 1

    This study is wrong - all of us know that's not how it works!

    The parasite makes men more attractive, more intelligent, and enables them to play strange futuristic instruments.

    On the other hand, if you do wish to dislodge it, all you have to do is tickle the pelvic splanchnic ganglion and get ready for the ride of your lives.

    *Side effects can include massive bone loss.

  49. good news everyone? by anhdres · · Score: 3, Funny

    First thing I thought while reading the title was "hey great more Futurama news!"

  50. OLD NEWS by Look+Sir,+Droids! · · Score: 1

    this is old! we've already known about these aspects of t. gondii for years now. fucking wake up, you cat-loving schizos. at any rate, the only important question imho is "when can we start the kitty genocide?" yeah... suck it, zombies.

  51. I need to by fireslack · · Score: 5, Funny

    Get my wife a cat!

    --
    This sig only exists because you are observing it.
  52. Bullshit by Jerry+Beasters · · Score: 1

    This is bullshit. There is very little to no legitimate scientific evidence that this parasite effects the brains of humans at all.

  53. Re:What if by nietsch · · Score: 1

    That might be true, or the effect is the same (increases factor X in brain) but men and women react different to it because men already have a higher level of factor X in their brain. Like a little alcohol may make you more talkative/uninhibited/nice, but a lot makes you stupid or keel over.
    Btw: was the hetero remark to weed out the homophobes? you can never have enough enemies :)

    --
    This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
  54. Cue The Movie by RichiP · · Score: 1

    In the year 2007, a parasite is released into the earth's atmosphere rendering women more aggressive and men more dumb. The balance of power shifts and men become subservient to women. And when things can't seem to get any worse, the true intent of the parasite surfaces. (cue in action music)

  55. This is Old News... by Avenel · · Score: 1

    KRYTEN: Lanstrom claims to have isolated several strains of positive virus: inspiration, charisma, sexual magnetism-- CAT: Sexual magnetism is a virus? Then get me to a hospital, I'm a terminal case!

  56. Toxoplasmosis linked to schizophrenia? by jamrock · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I remember reading a few months ago that some reseachers had a found a higher incidence of schizophrenia among persons who, when small children, had had cats in their households, leading some to believe that Toxoplasmosis gondii may be a causal factor. Apparently, it is claimed that new research has confirmed this. This is of personal interest to me because my 14 year-old son was infected by Toxoplasmosis a couple years ago during a vist to Trinidad. Physicians suspect that the most likely source was my wife's aunt's home-made yogurt, which my kids love. My wife's aunt is an animal lover, and keeps numerous dogs and cats, as well as feeding hosts of wild birds that descend on the house every morning.

    It was discovered after he complained about spots in his vision, and an opthalmological determined that there was a lesion on his retina which was flaking away. A blood test confirmed the presence of Toxoplasmosis gondii. Now he has to have an annual examination to ensure that the parasite is being kept under control by antibiotics, but it's always an extremely apprehensive time for us.

  57. Harry Mudd feeds his women cat shit? by Picass0 · · Score: 1

    Well, that MIGHT be enough to keep Kirk away....

  58. So *that's* my problem! by lewp · · Score: 1

    Somebody get me a brain slug. Stat!

    --
    Game... blouses.
  59. Old, old, old news... by crovira · · Score: 1

    Ever heard the song "The Girls All Look Better At Closing Time"?

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
  60. Great book on this by BenBoy · · Score: 1

    There's a terrific book on parasites, including this one, called Parasite Rex". Of course, after reading it, I can't stop washing my hands, and washing, and washing ... there's *way* stranger stuff in nature than Heinlein, etc. every dreamed of :-)

  61. It all started when I ate that toilet sandwich by tgeller · · Score: 2, Informative

    I can't believe nobody's made the obvious and obligatory Futurama reference.

    --
    Tom Geller
    1. Re:It all started when I ate that toilet sandwich by evilviper · · Score: 1
      I can't believe nobody's made the obvious and obligatory Futurama reference.

      I can't believe it either... ...mainly because I've counted 4 Futurama references above +3 in this thread that long predate your own.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  62. more horrible consequences by AlgorithMan · · Score: 1
    Infected men have lower IQs, achieve a lower level of education and have shorter attention spans. They are also [...]
    also they use windows and praise microsoft in discussion forums...
    --
    The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
  63. Re:tx by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
    "didnt know that about the antibiotic. wish i had known the last time i saw someone give up a cat because they were starting a family. "

    Yup...pick a real reason to give up the cats...they suck.

    :-)

    Get a dog...a loyal animal that responds to you, and will be your best friend for life....

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  64. inconclusive by Jerry+Rivers · · Score: 1

    "Dr Boulter said the recent Czech Republic research was not conclusive"

    So they decided to draw conclusions anyway.

    --
    The pursuit of absolute tolerance leads to the most rigorous and ludicrous intolerance. - REX MURPHY
  65. You Don't Need a Parasite by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

    ...to explain stupid human pet tricks.

    Human nature is quite adequate.

    Maybe these researchers have seen too many Star Wars movies where the "midichlorians" (or however that's spelled) control everything through "The Force". When that concept first came out in Star Wars, I thought Lucas had totally lost it - it was brain dead.

    OTOH, I've thought about Drexler's notion of embedding nanotech computers and robots into every cell of the human body. What would happen if you had trillions of human cells loaded up with distributed nanotech - or even femtotech or picotech - hardware that could monitor and totally control the human body and brain in realtime?

    That would pretty much solve the God question.

    So who says some advanced technocracy didn't do this to humans a hundred thousand years ago?

    The Matrix could be real and you'd never know it. That was the point.

    The real question this article raises: How can I can rid of this parasite in me - and load up the next HB I see with it? Can I spike her drink?

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  66. One of the proud 40% by BenBoy · · Score: 1

    Oops ... that would be one of a set of one in my reply above... Stoopid rare steaks, shoulda fed 'em to the stoopid kat.

  67. Permanence? by dacarr · · Score: 1

    What bothers me is that the article in SMH doesn't indicate whether this effect is permanent.

    --
    This sig no verb.
  68. outgoing crazy old cat ladys are sexier by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Nothing turns me on like a the insane cat lady with 400+ cats running all over her house, crapping on everything. The only way to clean the house after one of them is to burn or demolish the house. The idea is so hot oh my god.

  69. As a fan of the X-FILES, I have to ask.... by rubberbando · · Score: 1

    Does this 'parasite' happen to look like a black ooze?

    --
    DEAD DEAD DEAD DELETE ME
  70. hey, is that you, the_Fire_Horse by Maow · · Score: 1
    Likewise, cat-crap breath ;) Remember, cats will enjoy you being under a parasitic mind-control, but they just won't tell you that...

    What'sa matter, too chicken to reply with your user_id? No one is fooled by you posting "Anonymous". Same stoopid writing style.

    Here's an idea: don't post retarded shit you would be ashamed to stand by.

    by The_Fire_Horse (552422) Alter Relationship on 2006-12-30 0:42 (#17407358) (http://slashdot.org/~The_Fire_Horse/journal | Last Journal: 2006-12-30 4:18)

  71. Let me be the first grammar nazi to say... by fizzup · · Score: 1

    Headline: Parasites Makes Us Dumber or Sexier. I'm going with "dumber".

  72. Hmmmmm..... by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 1

    Would this parasite be similar to Midi-chlorians or those stomach worms that Phillip J. Fry had?

    --
    Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
  73. Cat shit, the new date rape drug by Cafe+Alpha · · Score: 1

    I can see the stories now.

  74. Re:George W. Bush (maybe off-topic) by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 1
    If you are too small minded to make a connection, please don't complain. Thanks.

    --
    You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
  75. Suicide by mlow82 · · Score: 1
    If it secretes a chemical that has the effect, I'd say this could be used for treatment in a variety of medical conditions.
    Or it could make you commit suicide:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Df_iGe_JSzI
  76. Re:yep, "well done" by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1


    I've never understood how americans can keep a cat cooped up in a house all of its life. In the UK, cats almost always have a cat flap and come and go as they please. Anything else seems cruel.

    --

    Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
  77. Could it be the other way around? by Buchenskjoll · · Score: 1

    Could be that people with the given properties are more likely to catch the eukaryte (or whatever). I seems to me that men who take risks are more likely to ingest cat excretions, and would be less attractive to women.

    --
    -- Make America hate again!
  78. Re:yep, "well done" by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

    Careful. Cat owners are notoriously fanatical. Pointing out things like this could cause cat owners in the US and the UK to fight a bloody war over what each side sees as mistreatment of cats by the other.

    I imagine the cats would secretly enjoy this immensely of course.

    --
    echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  79. Re:George W. Bush (completely offtopic) by Profound · · Score: 1

    It depends on why you think they invaded Iraq in the first place. Lets start with the original ones:

    -Stop imminent danger to America from Weapons of mass distruction
    -Bring peace and democracy to Iraq
    -Get people who were involved with 9/11

    Ok, so they're no good anymore, so what are they currently saying?

    -Bring to justice a corrupt dictator
    -Rebuild Iraq, hand over running to Iraquis and exit with dignity.

    Ok, so apparently the first one is done, and the other looks a long way off. There's no basic services, and peace and self-sufficiency seem decades away. But there are some things that have been achieved. To the US taxpayer, or family member of those serving, it may not look like a victory. But for some people, the war is a massive success:

    -Stopped Iraq from selling oil in Euros, rather than US$
    -Demonstrate acceptance of American people for a pre-emptive, internationally condemmed war.
    -Occupied countries and military bases on the western (Iraq) and Eastern (Afghanistan) borders of Iran
    -Increased military spending
    -Real life operations practice for US forces and test ground for new weapons technology
    -Re-building and resource extraction contracts handed out to US firms.

  80. Treatment? by DirePickle · · Score: 1

    The article mentions that there are drugs that can kill the parasite in rodents, and that it reverses the affects. There is no mention of the existence or lack of existence of a cure for humans. So... is it treatable?

    1. Re:Treatment? by DirePickle · · Score: 1

      Argh! Reverses the effects! I suck at The Grammar. :(

  81. Infected? by ccollao · · Score: 1

    EH? AH? What?

  82. Did you ever see the movie... by SonicSpike · · Score: 1

    "Manchurian Candidate"?

    --
    Libertas in infinitum
  83. Re:George W. Bush (completely offtopic) by Sique · · Score: 1

    Ok, so they're no good anymore, so what are they currently saying?

    -Bring to justice a corrupt dictator

    -Rebuild Iraq, hand over running to Iraquis and exit with dignity.
    Ok, so apparently the first one is done, and the other looks a long way off.

    If you replace "brought to justice" with "was executed very fast after only a single aspect of his dictatorship was slightly touched", then I agree.

    Yet commandeering someone to kill 148 people was surely already forbidden in the old iraqi law. Why not take the old laws and sentence Saddam Hussein according to them? Why artificially create new laws and enact them retroactively? If you want to prove that someone is bad and does illegal things, then start with looking at the laws in place when the suspected crime was done. He was a dictator after all, I am pretty sure that he didn't care if his actions were backed by a fresh law overriding the old ones.

    Getting the Shiites to cheer for Saddam Husseins execution was easy. They would also have cheered for him being executed for stealing candy. Getting the Sunnites to agree that he was a criminal is the hard part, and the way the process was done this chance was completely flundered. In the end Saddam Hussein was executed, but not brought to justice.

    I don't think it's "justice" if you create new laws afterwards and then tell people that they have run afoul of them. I know that this is very en vogue after 9/11, and suddenly "helping or being trained as a terrorist" is a criminal act, and it's up to the government to define case by case, what that means.

    What was until 2001 some kind of strange adventure vacation with some preaching, some training in a shooting range and lots of comraderie, completely has changed, and now you get indefinitely hold in detention without access to a lawyer, even though you might have been there decades ago and maybe even left soon after arrival because the camp looked too suspicious to you.

    What was an act of charity to some social organisations in the land of your roots, where you still have family ties now is "financing international terrorism" and also gets you in jail, even though you only wanted to help the creation of an elementary school in the village of your ancestors. And again it may be that it also puts you in jail retroactively for money you spend years ago.

    There's no basic services, and peace and self-sufficiency seem decades away. But there are some things that have been achieved. To the US taxpayer, or family member of those serving, it may not look like a victory. But for some people, the war is a massive success:

    -Stopped Iraq from selling oil in Euros, rather than US$
    -Demonstrate acceptance of American people for a pre-emptive, internationally condemmed war.
    -Occupied countries and military bases on the western (Iraq) and Eastern (Afghanistan) borders of Iran
    -Increased military spending
    -Real life operations practice for US forces and test ground for new weapons technology
    -Re-building and resource extraction contracts handed out to US firms.

    As far as I see stopping Iraq selling oil for Euros (which Iraq only announced and never did) didn't help the U.S. dollar if you just look at the exchange ratios. From the heydays of 2002, when the Euro traded for about 0.90 US$ we have a steep decline to today's ~1.30 US$. The whole US economy was devalued 30% during the last five years. To offset that you would need a yearly gross economy growth of about 6%, but the US economy achieved a maximum of about 4%. Calculated in Euros the US economy shrunk 2% a year.

    Basicly what you are saying is that spending half a trillion of US$ a year to a very small part of the U.S. economy and the U.S. people is somehow a success. If you happen to be involved with either the companies or the people, I could agree. But wouldn't it be much more effective and cheaper if the money doesn't need to be laundered by a war but be sent directly? Ju

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  84. Re:George W. Bush (completely offtopic) by Profound · · Score: 1

    The execution is over the small, early stuff because it doesn't involve any western governments like his later crimes did.

    Uncle Sam says:

    Apart from:
    -Invading the country
    -Deploying hundreds of thousands of troops
    -Installing a government
    -Picking the court

    Apart from that - We weren't involved! The Iraquis were responsible for all of this trial!


    But wouldn't it be much more effective and cheaper if the money doesn't need to be laundered by a war but be sent directly? Just sent US$ 1500 each year to each citizen of the U.S.

    This was mentioned in 1984, building and destroying military objects and digging and filling in holes have the same net outcome (ie make-work, no value) but one is so much easier to sell the population on.

    It's how you sell the idea:

    Will you vote to give money to rich corporations on a stupid war? -> No
    Do you think we should pay American business top dollar to provide the best for our fighting troops? -> Yup.

    Yes I agree the American economy, I am very very bearish on the economy overall. However, most people feel good about it, happy that their houses are worth lots of money, and their stocks are worth lots of money, everything is at a record high. But what if the way you keep score on things keeps losing its value? You feel rich... you vote incumbent... the fiscal liquidity tap keeps running...

    The US could probably do a lot of damage to Iran by bombing it with aircraft and just trying to destroy things, but not do any kind of holding of ground whatsoever. They have infinite money (as much as they can print and hope the rest fo the world believes in) and could just sit back and use high-tech to destroy things. They suck at holding things, and winning the trust of the locals.

    While the whole debacle is obviously bad for the economy overall, it does make some people a lot of money. Sure the deficits up, but their government contract is increased. The dollar is down 30% relative to other currencies but I've quadrupled my money so even in real terms, I'm still WAAAY up.

  85. where's the "news"? by Kvasio · · Score: 1

    It's been known for serveral years; I do not see what was the discovery?

    Someone even said that toxoplasmosis makes woman a perfect real estate agent; while turns male into testosterone-driven thug.