Phone data shows romance 'driven by women'

 

A study of mobile phone calls suggests that women call their spouse more than any other person. That changes as their daughters become old enough to have children, after which they become the most important person in their lives. The study has been published in the journal Scientific Reports. It also shows that men call their spouse most often for the first seven years of their relationship. They then shift their focus to other friends. The results come from an analysis of the texts of mobile phone calls of three million people. According to the study's co-author, Professor Robin Dunbar of Oxford University, UK, the investigation shows that pair-bonding is much more important to women than men. "It's the first really strong evidence that romantic relationships are driven by women," he told BBC News. "It's they who make the decision and once they have made their mind up, they just go for the poor bloke until he keels over and gives in!" But the data shows that women start to switch the preference of their best friend from about the mid-30s, and by the age of 45 a woman of a generation younger becomes the "new best friend", according to Professor Dunbar. Continue reading the main story “ Start Quote Human societies are moving back to a matriarchy” Prof Robin Dunbar Oxford University "What seems to happen is that women push the 'old man' out to become their second best friend, and he gets called much less often and all her attention is focussed on her daughters just at the point at which you are likely to see grandchildren arriving," he says. Prof Dunbar also claims that the findings suggest that human societies are moving away from a patriarchy back to a matriarchy. The aim of the project was to find out how close, intimate relationships vary over a lifetime. This kind of anthropological study is normally very difficult to do because it is hard for researchers to get such a big picture of people's lives. But by looking at an at an extremely large mobile phone database, they were able to track these changes extremely accurately. They had access to the age and sex of the callers, who between them made three billion calls and half a billion texts over a period of seven months. Intensely focussed The team wanted to find out how the gender preference of best friends, as defined by the frequency of the calling, changed over the course of a lifetime and differed between men and women. They found that men tend to choose a woman the same age as themselves - which the researchers presumed to be their girlfriend or wife - as a best friend much later in life than women do, and for a much shorter time. This occurs when they are in their early-30s, possibly during courtship, and stops after seven years or so. Women, however, choose a man of a similar age to be their best friend from the age of 20. He remains for about 15 years, after which time he's replaced by a daughter. The pendulum between the two sexes is swinging back towards women, says Prof Dunbar The researchers say that a woman's social world is intensely focussed a on one individual and will shift as a result of reproductive interests from being the mate to children and grandchildren. According to Prof Dunbar, the data suggests that "at root the important relationships are those between women and not those between men". "Men's relationships are too casual. They often function at a high level in a political sense, of course; but at the end of the day, the structure of society is driven by women, which is exactly what we see in primates," he explains. Many anthropologists argue that most human societies are patriarchal on the basis that in most communities men stay where they are born whereas the wives move. But Professor Dunbar and his colleagues are arguing that this only occurs in agriculturally based societies. "If you look at hunter-gatherers and you look at modern humans in modern post-industrial societies, we are much more matriarchal. It's almost as if the pendulum between the two sexes, power-wise, is swinging (back) as we move away from agriculture toward a knowledge-based economy," he says.

Surf Air: Can an all-you-can-fly airline possibly work?

 

SURF AIR, a Californian start-up, has a novel business model: for a monthly fee you can fly with the airline as much as you want. Is buffet-style air travel the wave of the future? JetBlue and Sun Country Airlines have both already tried offering all-you-can-fly passes, but so far no carrier has built its business model exclusively on a buffet plan. The idea isn't bad, but some scepticism is warranted. At $790 a month, Surf Air's flying plan will probably only appeal to business travellers who often go to the same places and rich Californians in long-distance relationships. Will that customer base allow Surf Air to make a profit? Maybe: 20m frequent flyers jetted between San Francisco and Los Angeles in 2011, according to the company's numbers. The airline plans to launch with service between Palo Alto, Monterey, Santa Barbara and Los Angeles, but it still needs to secure regulatory approval, according to a company press release. Frequent flyers make up a huge portion of the business-traveller population, and almost every airline relies on business travellers to get (and stay) in the black. There is surely some group of private-jet-sharing business travellers who might be attracted to an all-you-can-jet airline as a cheaper alternative. A lot will depend on how many flights and how much convenience Surf Air can offer, and how quickly it can expand service. The company's promises certainly seem attractive: [Surf Air will offer] its members 30-second booking and cancellations, travel to and from uncongested regional airports, and an easy arrive-and-fly process with no hassle, no lines and no extra fees. It's easy to make promises, though. It's much harder to run a profitable airline. As Gulliver often notes, the American airline sector overall has never really made any money—in fact, total earnings over the entire history of the industry are minus $33 billion. That, of course, suggests that existing airlines might be doing it wrong. Maybe all-you-can-fly really is the way to go. It's at least worth a shot. I'll be eager to see what people think of the final product—assuming regulators give the go-ahead.

Worrying is good for you and reflects higher IQ

It evolved in humans along with intelligence to make them more adept at avoiding danger. A study of 42 people found the worst sufferers of a common anxiety disorder had a higher IQ than those whose symptoms were less severe. Scientists say their findings published in Frontiers in Evolutionary Neuroscience, suggest worrying has developed as a beneficial trait. Psychiatrist Professor Jeremy Coplan, of SUNY Downstate Medical Centre in New York, and colleagues found high intelligence and worry are linked with brain activity measured by the depletion of the nutrient choline in the white matter of the brain. He said: "While excessive worry is generally seen as a negative trait and high intelligence as a positive one, worry may cause our species to avoid dangerous situations, regardless of how remote a possibility they may be. "In essence, worry may make people 'take no chances,' and such people may have higher survival rates. Thus, like intelligence, worry may confer a benefit upon the species." The researchers made the discovery by monitoring activity in the brains of twenty six patients with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) and eighteen healthy volunteers to assess the relationship between IQ, worry and the metabolism of choline. In the control group high IQ was associated with a lower degree of worry, but in those diagnosed with GAD it was linked with more. The correlation between IQ and worry was significant in both the GAD group and the healthy control group. But in the former it was positive and in the latter negative. Previous studies have indicated excessive worry tends to exist both in people with higher and lower intelligence, and less so in people of moderate intelligence. It has been suggested people with lower intelligence suffer more anxiety because they achieve less success in life. Worrying has also been shown to lessen the effect of depression by countering brain activity that heightens the condition.

Eating nuts can help stave off obesity, says study

 

Dieters often dismiss them because of their high fat content, but research suggests that snacking on nuts can help keep you slim. A study found that those who consumed varieties such as almonds, cashews and pistachios demonstrated a lower body weight, body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference compared to non-consumers. They were also at lower risk of developing heart disease, type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome. Experts are now recommending a daily intake of 1.5 ounces, or three tablespoons of nuts as part of a healthy diet. Lead researcher Carol O'Neil, from Louisiana State University, said: 'One of the more interesting findings was the fact that tree nut consumers had lower body weight, as well as lower body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference compared to non-consumers. 'The mean weight, BMI, and waist circumference were 4.19 pounds, 0.9kg/m2 and 0.83 inches lower in consumers than non-consumers, respectively.' In the study, published in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition, researchers compared risk factors for heart disease, type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome of nut consumers versus those who did not consume nuts.

Virgin Atlantic employee has resigned following allegations she routinely fed information about the airline's celebrity clientele

 

Virgin Atlantic employee has resigned following allegations she routinely fed information about the airline's celebrity clientele — from Madonna to Sienna Miller — to a paparazzi agency. The employee was a junior member of the team that looks after high-profile clients, Virgin said Friday. She quit Thursday before reports published in the Guardian and the Press Gazette alleged that she had passed the booking information of more than 60 celebrities on to the Big Pictures photo agency. Among those allegedly targeted: Britain's Princess Beatrice; singers Madonna and Rihanna; actors Charlize Theron, Kate Winslet, Daniel Radcliffe and Miller; comedians Sacha Baron Cohen and Russell Brand; and a slew of U.K. celebrities and sports figures. The Guardian and the Press Gazette cited messages allegedly sent by the employee to someone at Big Pictures Ltd. as the basis for their stories. The Associated Press had no immediate way of verifying the authenticity of the messages, but the Guardian said it had carried out checks confirming that at least some of the celebrities had traveled to the destinations mentioned in the emails. Calls and emails to representatives of around a dozen of the celebrities mentioned went unreturned Friday, a public holiday in Britain. A representative for Princess Beatrice declined comment, while Kate Winslet's publicist, Heidi Slan, said the star wasn't reachable. In a statement, Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd. called the allegations "extremely serious" and said it had launched an investigation. The airline, which is majority-owned by billionaire adventurer Richard Branson, confirmed that high-profile clients were involved but declined to comment on the British newspapers' figures. A man who answered the phone at London-based Big Pictures hung up when an Associated Press reporter identified himself as a member of the media. Emails sent to company founder Darryn Lyons' personal assistant weren't immediately returned, and no one answered the door at Big Pictures' central London office. The Press Gazette said Big Pictures was first approached for comment more than 48 hours ago but has yet to respond. Neither Virgin nor the newspapers identified the employee in question. The Guardian said it had contacted her on Wednesday and that she had declined comment. It was not clear Friday if authorities had become involved. Virgin refused to say whether it had called in the police and a Scotland Yard spokesman said he wasn't aware of the leak. The Information Commissioner's office — which investigates data breaches in Britain — said in a statement that the agency will need to make further inquiries "to establish the precise nature of the alleged incident before deciding what action, if any, needs to be taken." The past year has seen the sometimes underhanded methods of Britain's media thrust into the spotlight by a scandal over phone hacking at the now-defunct News of the World. Paparazzi have come under particular scrutiny, with public figures including Miller alleging aggressive, intimidating or illegal behavior on the part of celebrity-obsessed snappers. Miller, who testified before a judge-led inquiry into media ethics set up in the wake of the scandal, said she had been terrorized by photographers stalking her every move. "I would often find myself — I was 21 — at midnight running down a dark street on my own with ten big men chasing me and the fact that they had cameras in their hands meant that that was legal," she told the inquiry. "But if you take away the cameras, what have you got? You've got a pack of men chasing a woman and obviously that's a very intimidating situation to be in." Lyons, the founder of Big Pictures, told the same inquiry he had "no reason" to believe his photographers broke rules in pursuit of pictures, batting away suggestions that paparazzi victimize their targets. "The fact of the matter is that celebrities court publicity when they want to court publicity and then all of a sudden they want to switch it off very, very soon after," he told the inquiry. "If you are in the public eye, you are looked up to," he added. "We live in a world of voyeurism."

Trolling Could Get You 25 Years in Jail in Arizona

 

 Trolling Could Get You 25 Years in Jail in Arizona One of the Internet's basic tenets—the right to be as much of a myopic, infantile asshat as humanly possible—is currently under attack in Arizona. A sweeping update to the state's telecommunications harrasment bill could make naughty, angry words a Class 1 misdemeanor. Or worse. It's a dangerous precedent, yet another bill written and supported by legislators who fundamentally don't understand the nature of the internet. And I'm not just being a, well, you know. Arizona House Bill 2549 passed both legislative houses last Thursday and is now awaiting approval from Arizona's governor Brewer. The statute states that: "It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use a ANY ELECTRONIC OR DIGITAL DEVICE and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person." Emphasis added. If the electronic devices and means are employed to stalk a victim, the penalty bumps up to a Class 3 felony. For those not intimately familiar with Arizona penal law, a Class 1 misdemeanor is punishable by a $2,500 fine and up to six months in jail (it's the most aggressive misdemeanor charge the state can bring). A Class 3 felony, meanwhile, carries a minimum sentence of 2.5 years for non-dangerous offenders with no prior record. And a max of 25 years in jail. Opponents of the bill argue that the wording is overly broad and could easily be interpreted to include not just one-on-one communications but public forums like 4Chan, Reddit, and anywhere else that allows commenting. You thought the banhammer was bad? Try handcuffs. It could also have a chilling effect on free speech by prohibiting shocking or "profane" language online. And since the bill stipulates that the offense only has to occur on Arizona soil (since a Facebook comment is definitely a geographic place, right?) that basically puts the entire Internet on notice. The bill's supporters argue that the steps are necessary to prevent online bullying. Despite the public outcry, the bill has seen very little resistance from elected officials. However, given how well Arizona's other recent, short-lived, and generally draconian propositions—-including its racial profiling, anti-gay adoption, and anti-immigration bills—-have fared, House Bill 2549 might not be a law for long, assuming Governor Brewer even signs it.