Japanese Exploding Piggy Bank

I saw this the other day on mental_floss magazine and this morning again as a link on the Freakonomics Blog....so, I couldn't pass up the opportunity to talk about the recently released Japanese Exploding Piggy Bank.

The point of this piggy bank is that it will "explode" when the owner hasn't saved in a while.
So, it scatters coins all over the place when you haven't fed it money in a few days? I realize this is designed as a toy, but I think it is sending the wrong message.

The Japanese thought about the exploding aspect:
"'Users must pick up and collect the scattered coins and reflect on their laziness,' the Japanese company said."

If it were me, I would take that exploded money, reflex on my laziness about putting it back in the piggy bank and instead spend it. What is easier, putting lots of coins one at a time through a small slot or taking them all and buying something cool?
But, then you have to deal with the embarrassment of paying for something with lots of coins. Or you could go to the bank first. But, then we get back to our original question of which is easier...picking up the coins and going to a bank to get money OR putting the coins back in the piggy bank?

I've confused myself.

Clearly, the right way to go is to use the already released Japanese pee powered batteries (previously posted by zach) in your battery powered piggy bank. You will save money by dropping coins in the piggy bank slot and save even more money by recharging the piggy bank batteries with your own "little potty".

The battery producer, NoPoPo, and the piggy bank maker, TOMY Co Ltd, should really do a joint marketing campaign....

P.S. If you don't want to get mugged taking your piggy bank to the real bank, make sure to wear one of these vending machine costumes (previously mentioned by electronic vagrant).

Eating sushi makes you more attractive...

...statistically speaking.

According to an article about how Democrats are pinning their hopes on sushi, sushi eaters are more attractive.

They don't show a graph in the article, but I'm assuming they are comparing the amount of sushi restaurants in a city and the attractiveness of the people who live there.

Here's the list of the top 25 cities by human attractiveness: LINK
(only Philly is worse than D.C.)

The original article, which I found on the Freakonomics blog, actually talks about how the ratio of steak to sushi places can be correlated to the blueness or redness of a city.

ACOM tends to be conservative, but he loves sushi. So, clearly it doesn't always work.

The article also highlights a few other fun facts:

• fattest vs. fittest cities - steak doesn't necessarily make you fatter
  
• the most wired cities - no real connection between internet access and the food you eat
  
• steak-eating, Republican-voting cities are getting bigger faster than their sushi-loving, blue state brethren

Blue eyes run the White House?

I've started reading the Freakonomics blog, by the same guys who wrote the popular book.

If you haven't read the book, I highly recommend it. The authors make correlations and causations between things and events that people normally wouldn't think of. For example, lower crime rates and the legalization of abortion.

Anyway, in one of the latest blog entries, it is proposed that Fred Thompson will win the next presidential election because he has blue eyes. Apparently, every President since Richard Nixon has had blue eyes.

While men may not notice the color of another guy's eyes, women do. It was pointed out by female blogger, Noele Kensut.

The key to Kensut's argument:
"Today only 1 in every 6 Americans, or 16.7% of the population, has blue eyes. This percentage has been dropping in part due to immigration from non-European countries. A 2002 Loyola University study found that as many as 50% of Americans born in 1900 had blue eyes. The choice of an American with blue eyes for President may signal a voter preference for someone with deeper roots in America, vs. a relative newcomer."

It is also pointed out that John Edwards has blue eyes. But, since Edwards gets $400 haircuts and is generally more girly, he won't win. Then again, by that logic (being more girly), Hillary should win (although I'm sure there's an argument that even though she is female, she isn't more girly). Clearly, I haven't thought this through...

Another reason why Edwards won't win: