My several years in the word game have learnt me several rules:
Avoid alliteration. Always.
Prepositions are not words to end sentences with.
Avoid cliches like the plague. (They're old hat.)
Employ the vernacular.
Eschew ampersands & abbreviations, etc.
Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are unnecessary.
It is wrong to ever split an infinitive.
Contractions aren't necessary.
Foreign words and phrases are not apropos.
One should never generalize.
Eliminate quotations. As Ralph Waldo Emerson once said: "I hate quotations. Tell me what you know."
Comparisons are as bad as cliches.
Don't be redundant; don't use more words than necessary; it's highly superfluous.
Profanity sucks.
Be more or less specific.
Understatement is always best.
Exaggeration is a billion times worse than understatement.
One-word sentences? Eliminate.
Analogies in writing are like feathers on a snake.
The passive voice is to be avoided.
Go around the barn at high noon to avoid colloquialisms.
Even if a mixed metaphor sings, it should be derailed.
Who needs rhetorical questions?
Monday, March 29, 2010
Monday, March 22, 2010
The world's only immortal animal
(Photo: Peter Schuchert)
The turritopsis nutricula species of jellyfish may be the only animal in the world to have truly discovered the fountain of youth.
Since it is capable of cycling from a mature adult stage to an immature polyp stage and back again, there may be no natural limit to its life span. Scientists say the hydrozoan jellyfish is the only known animal that can repeatedly turn back the hands of time and revert to its polyp state (its first stage of life).
The key lies in a process called transdifferentiation, where one type of cell is transformed into another type of cell. Some animals can undergo limited transdifferentiation and regenerate organs, such as salamanders, which can regrow limbs. Turritopsi nutricula, on the other hand, can regenerate its entire body over and over again. Researchers are studying the jellyfish to discover how it is able to reverse its aging process.
Because they are able to bypass death, the number of individuals is spiking. They're now found in oceans around the globe rather than just in their native Caribbean waters. "We are looking at a worldwide silent invasion," says Dr. Maria Miglietta of the Smithsonian Tropical Marine Institute.
Free will is an illusion, biologist says
(PhysOrg.com) -- When biologist Anthony Cashmore claims that the concept of free will is an illusion, he's not breaking any new ground. At least as far back as the ancient Greeks, people have wondered how humans seem to have the ability to make their own personal decisions in a manner lacking any causal component other than their desire to "will" something. But Cashmore, Professor of Biology at the University of Pennsylvania, says that many biologists today still cling to the idea of free will, and reject the idea that we are simply conscious machines, completely controlled by a combination of our chemistry and external environmental forces.
In a recent study, Cashmore has argued that a belief in free will is akin to religious beliefs, since neither complies with the laws of the physical world. One of the basic premises of biology and biochemistry is that biological systems are nothing more than a bag of chemicals that obey chemical and physical laws. Generally, we have no problem with the “bag of chemicals” notion when it comes to bacteria, plants, and similar entities. So why is it so difficult to say the same about humans or other “higher level” species, when we’re all governed by the same laws?
No causal mechanism
As Cashmore explains, the human brain acts at both the conscious level as well as the unconscious. It’s our consciousness that makes us aware of our actions, giving us the sense that we control them, as well. But even without this awareness, our brains can still induce our bodies to act, and studies have indicated that consciousness is something that follows unconscious neural activity. Just because we are often aware of multiple paths to take, that doesn’t mean we actually get to choose one of them based on our own free will. As the ancient Greeks asked, by what mechanism would we be choosing? The physical world is made of causes and effects - “nothing comes from nothing” - but free will, by its very definition, has no physical cause. The Roman philosopher and poet Lucretius, in reference to this problem of free will, noted that the Greek philosophers concluded that atoms "randomly swerve" - the likely source of this movement being the numerous Greek gods.
Today, as researchers gain a better understanding of the molecular details underlying consciousness, some people think that we may discover a molecular mechanism responsible for free will - but Cashmore doesn’t think so. Such a discovery, he says, would require a new physical law that breaks the causal laws of nature. As it is, the only “wild card” that allows any room for maneuvering outside of genetics and one’s environment is the inherent uncertainty of the physical properties of matter, and even this stochastic element is beyond our conscious control. (However, it can help explain why identical twins growing up in the same environment are unique individuals.)
To put it simply, free will just doesn’t fit with how the physical world works. Cashmore compares a belief in free will to an earlier belief in vitalism - the belief that there are forces governing the biological world that are distinct from those governing the physical world. Vitalism was discarded more than 100 years ago, being replaced with evidence that biological systems obey the laws of chemistry and physics, not special biological laws for living things.
“I would like to convince biologists that a belief in free will is nothing other than a continuing belief in vitalism (or, as I say, a belief in magic),” Cashmore told PhysOrg.com.
Conscious Deception
It all seems quite rational, so why is our lack of free will so difficult to accept for many people? Cashmore explains that there are several compelling reasons that people have for believing in free will, not the least of which is that we have a constant awareness of making decisions that seem to be driven by our own volition. In addition, free will is a very useful concept when it comes to the justice system; we take responsibility for our criminal actions and accordingly, are eligible for personal punishment, which is deemed to be necessary for protecting society.
However, Cashmore argues that there are deeper explanations for why we think we have free will. He thinks that there must be a genetic basis for consciousness and the associated belief in free will. Consciousness has an evolutionary selective advantage: it provides us with the illusion of responsibility, which is beneficial for society, if not for individuals as well. In this sense, consciousness is our “preview function” that comforts us into thinking that we are in control of what we will (or at least may) do ahead of time. As Cashmore notes, the irony is that the very existence of these "free will genes" is predicated on their ability to con us into believing in free will and responsibility. However, in reality, all behavioral decisions are nothing more than a reflection of our genetic and environmental history.
“Whereas the impressions are that we are making ‘free’ conscious decisions, the reality is that consciousness is simply a state of awareness that reflects the input signals, and these are an unavoidable consequence of GES [genes, environment, and stochasticism],” Cashmore explained.
“Few neurobiologists would argue with the notion that consciousness influences behavior by acting through unconscious neural activity,” he said. “More controversial is the notion that consciousness plays a relatively minor role in governing our behavior. The conscious mind is conceivably more a mechanism of following unconscious neural activity than it is one of directing such activity. I find it interesting to compare this line of thinking with that of Freud, who created a controversy by suggesting that the unconscious mind played a role in our behavior. The way of thinking regarding these matters now has moved to the extent that some are questioning what role, if any, the conscious mind plays in directing behavior. Namely, Freud was right to an extent that was much greater than he realized.”
To summarize, Cashmore’s argument is that free will is an illusion derived from consciousness, but consciousness has an evolutionary advantage of conferring the illusion of responsibility. So what is the point of publicizing the fact that we have no free will, and letting everyone off the hook of individual responsibility? Cashmore says that, as researchers deepen their understanding of the molecular basis of human behavior, it will become increasingly difficult to entertain the fallacy of free will.
Can’t Be Held Responsible
Perhaps the most obvious impact of this paradigm shift will be on our judicial system, in which the notions of free will and responsibility form an integral component. Currently, in order to be found guilty, a criminal must be considered responsible for his actions; otherwise, he can be found not guilty by reason of insanity. Cashmore disagrees with these rules, noting that psychiatric research is finding its way more and more into the courts and causing time-wasting debates. (For example, is alcoholism a disease? Are sex crimes an addiction?)
“Where is the logic in debating an individual’s level of responsibility, when the reality is that none of us are biologically responsible for our actions?" he said.
Cashmore proposes a change, based on “the elimination of the illogical concept that individuals are in control of their behavior in a manner that is something other than a reflection of their genetic makeup and their environmental history.”
He says that psychiatrists and other experts on human behavior should not be involved in initial judicial proceedings. The jury should simply determine whether or not a defendant is guilty of committing a crime, and not be concerned with mental issues. Then, if the defendant is found guilty, a court-appointed panel of experts would advise on the most appropriate punishment and treatment. Cashmore argues that, even though individuals are not biologically responsible for their actions, in order to minimize criminal activity, people should still be held accountable, and be punished when necessary. Such punishment is rationalized on the grounds that it will serve as an incentive (an environmental influence) not to participate in criminal behavior.
“Here I introduce the practice of ‘I am sorry about this but I am going to have to beat you,’” Cashmore said. “This punishment is rationalized in the sense that it serves as a lesson to individuals not to break the law. So people would be held accountable for their actions, even though they are not ‘biologically responsible’ for such actions. This punishment may involve fines or placing people in prison. Such punishment should not reflect any sense of retribution, and given this I do not personally see how one could continue to impose the death penalty - the alleged effectiveness of such a penalty presumably being far outweighed by its unfairness. The exact way in which one balances the presumptive requirement for punishment, and the lack of biological responsibility, would indeed be difficult, and would require much discussion within the legal system and society as a whole.”
He said that tailoring punishment on an individual basis is presently done, at least to some extent.
“Why is it important to make a change? Because increasingly the legal system is being forced to confront the reality that people’s behavior is governed by nothing other than their biological history: their genes, their environment and a degree of stochasticism (if you wish, a degree of chance). The legal system is increasingly seen to be a farce, with lawyers spending endless time and money debating this nonsensical question of how responsible or not their clients are. Why nonsensical? Because no one is biologically responsible for their actions. As Francis Crick said, ‘Dream as we may, reality knocks relentlessly at the door.’ And as a result of the rapid and ongoing progress in neuroscience, the reality that individual behavior is governed by one’s genetic and environmental history is becoming increasingly apparent.”
In a recent study, Cashmore has argued that a belief in free will is akin to religious beliefs, since neither complies with the laws of the physical world. One of the basic premises of biology and biochemistry is that biological systems are nothing more than a bag of chemicals that obey chemical and physical laws. Generally, we have no problem with the “bag of chemicals” notion when it comes to bacteria, plants, and similar entities. So why is it so difficult to say the same about humans or other “higher level” species, when we’re all governed by the same laws?
No causal mechanism
As Cashmore explains, the human brain acts at both the conscious level as well as the unconscious. It’s our consciousness that makes us aware of our actions, giving us the sense that we control them, as well. But even without this awareness, our brains can still induce our bodies to act, and studies have indicated that consciousness is something that follows unconscious neural activity. Just because we are often aware of multiple paths to take, that doesn’t mean we actually get to choose one of them based on our own free will. As the ancient Greeks asked, by what mechanism would we be choosing? The physical world is made of causes and effects - “nothing comes from nothing” - but free will, by its very definition, has no physical cause. The Roman philosopher and poet Lucretius, in reference to this problem of free will, noted that the Greek philosophers concluded that atoms "randomly swerve" - the likely source of this movement being the numerous Greek gods.
Today, as researchers gain a better understanding of the molecular details underlying consciousness, some people think that we may discover a molecular mechanism responsible for free will - but Cashmore doesn’t think so. Such a discovery, he says, would require a new physical law that breaks the causal laws of nature. As it is, the only “wild card” that allows any room for maneuvering outside of genetics and one’s environment is the inherent uncertainty of the physical properties of matter, and even this stochastic element is beyond our conscious control. (However, it can help explain why identical twins growing up in the same environment are unique individuals.)
To put it simply, free will just doesn’t fit with how the physical world works. Cashmore compares a belief in free will to an earlier belief in vitalism - the belief that there are forces governing the biological world that are distinct from those governing the physical world. Vitalism was discarded more than 100 years ago, being replaced with evidence that biological systems obey the laws of chemistry and physics, not special biological laws for living things.
“I would like to convince biologists that a belief in free will is nothing other than a continuing belief in vitalism (or, as I say, a belief in magic),” Cashmore told PhysOrg.com.
Conscious Deception
It all seems quite rational, so why is our lack of free will so difficult to accept for many people? Cashmore explains that there are several compelling reasons that people have for believing in free will, not the least of which is that we have a constant awareness of making decisions that seem to be driven by our own volition. In addition, free will is a very useful concept when it comes to the justice system; we take responsibility for our criminal actions and accordingly, are eligible for personal punishment, which is deemed to be necessary for protecting society.
However, Cashmore argues that there are deeper explanations for why we think we have free will. He thinks that there must be a genetic basis for consciousness and the associated belief in free will. Consciousness has an evolutionary selective advantage: it provides us with the illusion of responsibility, which is beneficial for society, if not for individuals as well. In this sense, consciousness is our “preview function” that comforts us into thinking that we are in control of what we will (or at least may) do ahead of time. As Cashmore notes, the irony is that the very existence of these "free will genes" is predicated on their ability to con us into believing in free will and responsibility. However, in reality, all behavioral decisions are nothing more than a reflection of our genetic and environmental history.
“Whereas the impressions are that we are making ‘free’ conscious decisions, the reality is that consciousness is simply a state of awareness that reflects the input signals, and these are an unavoidable consequence of GES [genes, environment, and stochasticism],” Cashmore explained.
“Few neurobiologists would argue with the notion that consciousness influences behavior by acting through unconscious neural activity,” he said. “More controversial is the notion that consciousness plays a relatively minor role in governing our behavior. The conscious mind is conceivably more a mechanism of following unconscious neural activity than it is one of directing such activity. I find it interesting to compare this line of thinking with that of Freud, who created a controversy by suggesting that the unconscious mind played a role in our behavior. The way of thinking regarding these matters now has moved to the extent that some are questioning what role, if any, the conscious mind plays in directing behavior. Namely, Freud was right to an extent that was much greater than he realized.”
To summarize, Cashmore’s argument is that free will is an illusion derived from consciousness, but consciousness has an evolutionary advantage of conferring the illusion of responsibility. So what is the point of publicizing the fact that we have no free will, and letting everyone off the hook of individual responsibility? Cashmore says that, as researchers deepen their understanding of the molecular basis of human behavior, it will become increasingly difficult to entertain the fallacy of free will.
Can’t Be Held Responsible
Perhaps the most obvious impact of this paradigm shift will be on our judicial system, in which the notions of free will and responsibility form an integral component. Currently, in order to be found guilty, a criminal must be considered responsible for his actions; otherwise, he can be found not guilty by reason of insanity. Cashmore disagrees with these rules, noting that psychiatric research is finding its way more and more into the courts and causing time-wasting debates. (For example, is alcoholism a disease? Are sex crimes an addiction?)
“Where is the logic in debating an individual’s level of responsibility, when the reality is that none of us are biologically responsible for our actions?" he said.
Cashmore proposes a change, based on “the elimination of the illogical concept that individuals are in control of their behavior in a manner that is something other than a reflection of their genetic makeup and their environmental history.”
He says that psychiatrists and other experts on human behavior should not be involved in initial judicial proceedings. The jury should simply determine whether or not a defendant is guilty of committing a crime, and not be concerned with mental issues. Then, if the defendant is found guilty, a court-appointed panel of experts would advise on the most appropriate punishment and treatment. Cashmore argues that, even though individuals are not biologically responsible for their actions, in order to minimize criminal activity, people should still be held accountable, and be punished when necessary. Such punishment is rationalized on the grounds that it will serve as an incentive (an environmental influence) not to participate in criminal behavior.
“Here I introduce the practice of ‘I am sorry about this but I am going to have to beat you,’” Cashmore said. “This punishment is rationalized in the sense that it serves as a lesson to individuals not to break the law. So people would be held accountable for their actions, even though they are not ‘biologically responsible’ for such actions. This punishment may involve fines or placing people in prison. Such punishment should not reflect any sense of retribution, and given this I do not personally see how one could continue to impose the death penalty - the alleged effectiveness of such a penalty presumably being far outweighed by its unfairness. The exact way in which one balances the presumptive requirement for punishment, and the lack of biological responsibility, would indeed be difficult, and would require much discussion within the legal system and society as a whole.”
He said that tailoring punishment on an individual basis is presently done, at least to some extent.
“Why is it important to make a change? Because increasingly the legal system is being forced to confront the reality that people’s behavior is governed by nothing other than their biological history: their genes, their environment and a degree of stochasticism (if you wish, a degree of chance). The legal system is increasingly seen to be a farce, with lawyers spending endless time and money debating this nonsensical question of how responsible or not their clients are. Why nonsensical? Because no one is biologically responsible for their actions. As Francis Crick said, ‘Dream as we may, reality knocks relentlessly at the door.’ And as a result of the rapid and ongoing progress in neuroscience, the reality that individual behavior is governed by one’s genetic and environmental history is becoming increasingly apparent.”
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Friday, November 13, 2009
Obama tops Forbes list of world's most powerful people
SINGAPORE (Reuters Life!) – U.S. President Barack Obama can add another accolade to his already long list of awards after being named the world's most powerful person in an inaugural ranking by Forbes magazine.
Obama, whose popularity at home and abroad has boosted the image of the United States according to numerous surveys, topped the list that also features al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and TV talk show host Oprah Winfrey as people wielding some influence over the world.
In compiling the inaugural ranking, Forbes said it had narrowed the list to 67 people, "a number based on the conceit that one can reduce the world's 6.7 billion people to the one in every 100 million that matter."
"The goal in compiling this list is to expose power and not glorify it, and over time reveal how influence is as easily lost as it is hard to gain," the magazine said.
World and industry leaders dominated the top 10 of the list, which Forbes said was assessed on the number of people the person influences, their ability to project power beyond their immediate sphere of influence, their control of financial resources and how actively that person wields power.
Also on the list were financial heavyweights including Goldman Sachs Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein (18) and billionaire investor and philanthropist Warren Buffett (14), as well as Pope Benedict (11).
Bin Laden came in at number 37 and Winfrey at number 45.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown came in at number 29 while Queen Elizabeth failed to make the list.
The top 10 list is as follows:
1. U.S. President Barack Obama
2. Chinese President Hu Jintao
3. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin
4. U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke
5. Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page
6. Carlos Slim, Chief Executive of Mexico's Telmex
7. Rupert Murdoch, chairman of media group News Corp.
8. Michael T. Duke, Chief executive, Wal-Mart Stores
9. Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz
10. Bill Gates, co-chairman, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Space hotel says it's on schedule to open in 2012
The cost of a three-night stay at ‘Galactic’ resort estimated at $4.4 million
BARCELONA, Spain - A company behind plans to open the first hotel in space says it is on target to accept its first paying guests in 2012 despite critics questioning the investment and time frame for the multi-billion dollar project.
The Barcelona-based architects of The Galactic Suite Space Resort say it will cost $4.4 million for a three-night stay at the hotel, with this price including an eight-week training course on a tropical island.
During their stay, guests would see the sun rise 15 times a day and travel around the world every 80 minutes. They would wear Velcro suits so they can crawl around their pod rooms by sticking themselves to the walls like Spiderman.
Galactic Suite Ltd's CEO Xavier Claramunt, a former aerospace engineer, said the project will put his company at the forefront of an infant industry with a huge future ahead of it, and forecast space travel will become common in the future.
"It's very normal to think that your children, possibly within 15 years, could spend a weekend in space," he told Reuters Television.
A nascent space tourism industry is beginning to take shape with construction underway in New Mexico of Spaceport America, the world's first facility built specifically for space-bound commercial customers and fee-paying passengers.
British tycoon Richard Branson's space tours firm, Virgin Galactic, will use the facility to propel tourists into suborbital space at a cost of $200,000 a ride.
Galactic Suite Ltd, set up in 2007, hopes to start its project with a single pod in orbit 280 miles above the earth, with the capacity to hold four guests and two astronaut-pilots.
It will take a day and a half to reach the pod — which Claramunt compared to a mountain retreat, with no staff to greet the traveler.
"When the passengers arrive in the rocket, they will join it for three days, rocket and capsule. With this we create in the tourist a confidence that he hasn't been abandoned. After three days the passenger returns to the transport rocket and returns to earth," he said.
More than 200 people have expressed an interest in traveling to the space hotel and at least 43 people have already reserved.
The numbers are similar for Virgin Galactic with 300 people already paid or signed up for the trip but unlike Branson, Galactic Suite say they will use Russian rockets to transport their guests into space from a spaceport to be build on an island in the Caribbean.
But critics have questioned the project, saying the time frame is unreasonable and also where the money is coming from to finance the project.
Claramunt said an anonymous billionaire space enthusiast has granted $3 billion to finance the project.
The Martian Torture Chamber
In a Berlin basement sits a small torture chamber. The air inside the hermetically sealed steel chest consists of a choking 95 percent carbon dioxide, some nitrogen, and traces of oxygen and argon. The pressure within is 1/170 that on Earth, and the thermostat is set to –50˚F—in other words, a nice afternoon on Mars. Experiments at the facility regularly subject some of Earth’s hardiest creatures to this hell, and they do just fine.
This August, several dozen scientific institutes combined forces to test a variety of Earth species in Mars-like conditions. Identifying life-forms that can survive on another planet, what mechanisms they use to do so, and what by-products they leave behind will give scientists a more specific idea of what to look for when searching for E.T., says Jean-Pierre de Vera, a biologist at the German Center for Aeronautics and Space Research (DLR), where most of the experiments are carried out.
At press time, the scientists had tested Deinococcus radiodurans, a bacterium known for its radiation tolerance, Xanthoria elegans, a lichen that thrives in Antarctica and low-oxygen conditions, and Bacillus subtilis, a comparatively ordinary bacteria found in soil around the planet. “I was astonished that organized, symbiotic communities such as lichens [which consist of fungi and photosynthetic algae or bacteria] can survive,” de Vera says. After 22 days, 80 to 90 percent of the lichens were not only alive but active—it seems that complex life-giving processes can happen off-planet. For one thing, de Vera says, “this is the first evidence that organisms might conduct photosynthesis on Mars.” Next he plans to investigate whether methane-producing bacteria, which could account for Mars’s methane clouds, can make it on the planet.
Vatican looks to heavens for signs of alien life
VATICAN CITY – E.T. phone Rome. Four hundred years after it locked up Galileo for challenging the view that the Earth was the center of the universe, the Vatican has called in experts to study the possibility of extraterrestrial alien life and its implication for the Catholic Church.
"The questions of life's origins and of whether life exists elsewhere in the universe are very suitable and deserve serious consideration," said the Rev. Jose Gabriel Funes, an astronomer and director of the Vatican Observatory.
Funes, a Jesuit priest, presented the results Tuesday of a five-day conference that gathered astronomers, physicists, biologists and other experts to discuss the budding field of astrobiology — the study of the origin of life and its existence elsewhere in the cosmos.
Funes said the possibility of alien life raises "many philosophical and theological implications" but added that the gathering was mainly focused on the scientific perspective and how different disciplines can be used to explore the issue.
Chris Impey, an astronomy professor at the University of Arizona, said it was appropriate that the Vatican would host such a meeting.
"Both science and religion posit life as a special outcome of a vast and mostly inhospitable universe," he told a news conference Tuesday. "There is a rich middle ground for dialogue between the practitioners of astrobiology and those who seek to understand the meaning of our existence in a biological universe."
Thirty scientists, including non-Catholics, from the U.S., France, Britain, Switzerland, Italy and Chile attended the conference, called to explore among other issues "whether sentient life forms exist on other worlds."
Funes set the stage for the conference a year ago when he discussed the possibility of alien life in an interview given prominence in the Vatican's daily newspaper.
The Church of Rome's views have shifted radically through the centuries since Italian philosopher Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake as a heretic in 1600 for speculating, among other ideas, that other worlds could be inhabited.
Scientists have discovered hundreds of planets outside our solar system — including 32 new ones announced recently by the European Space Agency. Impey said the discovery of alien life may be only a few years away.
"If biology is not unique to the Earth, or life elsewhere differs bio-chemically from our version, or we ever make contact with an intelligent species in the vastness of space, the implications for our self-image will be profound," he said.
This is not the first time the Vatican has explored the issue of extraterrestrials: In 2005, its observatory brought together top researchers in the field for similar discussions.
In the interview last year, Funes told Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano that believing the universe may host aliens, even intelligent ones, does not contradict a faith in God.
"How can we rule out that life may have developed elsewhere?" Funes said in that interview.
"Just as there is a multitude of creatures on Earth, there could be other beings, even intelligent ones, created by God. This does not contradict our faith, because we cannot put limits on God's creative freedom."
Funes maintained that if intelligent beings were discovered, they would also be considered "part of creation."
The Roman Catholic Church's relationship with science has come a long way since Galileo was tried as a heretic in 1633 and forced to recant his finding that the Earth revolves around the sun. Church teaching at the time placed Earth at the center of the universe.
Today top clergy, including Funes, openly endorse scientific ideas like the Big Bang theory as a reasonable explanation for the creation of the universe. The theory says the universe began billions of years ago in the explosion of a single, super-dense point that contained all matter.
Earlier this year, the Vatican also sponsored a conference on evolution to mark the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species."
The event snubbed proponents of alternative theories, like creationism and intelligent design, which see a higher being rather than the undirected process of natural selection behind the evolution of species.
Still, there are divisions on the issues within the Catholic Church and within other religions, with some favoring creationism or intelligent design that could make it difficult to accept the concept of alien life.
Working with scientists to explore fundamental questions that are of interest to religion is in line with the teachings of Pope Benedict XVI, who has made strengthening the relationship between faith and reason a key aspect of his papacy.
Recent popes have been working to overcome the accusation that the church was hostile to science — a reputation grounded in the Galileo affair.
In 1992, Pope John Paul II declared the ruling against the astronomer was an error resulting from "tragic mutual incomprehension."
The Vatican Museums opened an exhibit last month marking the 400th anniversary of Galileo's first celestial observations.
Tommaso Maccacaro, president of Italy's national institute of astrophysics, said at the exhibit's Oct. 13 opening that astronomy has had a major impact on the way we perceive ourselves.
"It was astronomical observations that let us understand that Earth (and man) don't have a privileged position or role in the universe," he said. "I ask myself what tools will we use in the next 400 years, and I ask what revolutions of understanding they'll bring about, like resolving the mystery of our apparent cosmic solitude."
The Vatican Observatory has also been at the forefront of efforts to bridge the gap between religion and science. Its scientist-clerics have generated top-notch research and its meteorite collection is considered one of the world's best.
The observatory, founded by Pope Leo XIII in 1891, is based in Castel Gandolfo, a lakeside town in the hills outside Rome where the pope has his summer residence. It also conducts research at an observatory at the University of Arizona, in Tucson.
Russian cannibal who ate his mother given lighter sentence by judge who says 'he was starving, he needed to eat'
A cannibal who killed and ate parts of his mother had his sentence reduced by a judge who said 'he needed to eat'.
Sergey Gavrilov secured reduced time in jail after confessing: 'I did not like the meat very much. It was too fatty. But I was so hungry, I had to eat it.'
The 27-year-old was given a lenient prison sentence because the judge said he was starving and needed to eat after spending all his money on vodka and gambling machines.
The Russian man hit his mother Lyubov, 55, over the head with a brick and then strangled her with an electric cable following a row over her refusal to give him her pension money to spend on alcohol.
A court heard how he put her body on the balcony of the family flat near Samara, in southern Russia, and took her allowance before going on a two day drinking and gambling binge.
Returning to the flat, he soon ran out of food and started slicing meat from his mother's body.
'She was frozen, like meat in the freezer,' he told police.
He cooked soup and pasta with meat from his mother's body over a period of more than a month, he said.
The Russian criminal code dictates 15 years in jail for his crimes but the judge said he was reducing it slightly because Gavrilov - who previously served time in jail for robbery - pleaded guilty and 'he was not keen to eat the meat, he just was hungry'.
Gavrilov was jailed for 14 years and three months.
Psychiatric tests found the man was 'normal' mentally and fully aware of what he was doing.
He was caught when a policeman came to his flat, suspecting him of stealing a mobile phone.
The officer found the dead woman - with both her legs missing - on the balcony.
Sergey Gavrilov secured reduced time in jail after confessing: 'I did not like the meat very much. It was too fatty. But I was so hungry, I had to eat it.'
The 27-year-old was given a lenient prison sentence because the judge said he was starving and needed to eat after spending all his money on vodka and gambling machines.
The Russian man hit his mother Lyubov, 55, over the head with a brick and then strangled her with an electric cable following a row over her refusal to give him her pension money to spend on alcohol.
A court heard how he put her body on the balcony of the family flat near Samara, in southern Russia, and took her allowance before going on a two day drinking and gambling binge.
Returning to the flat, he soon ran out of food and started slicing meat from his mother's body.
'She was frozen, like meat in the freezer,' he told police.
He cooked soup and pasta with meat from his mother's body over a period of more than a month, he said.
The Russian criminal code dictates 15 years in jail for his crimes but the judge said he was reducing it slightly because Gavrilov - who previously served time in jail for robbery - pleaded guilty and 'he was not keen to eat the meat, he just was hungry'.
Gavrilov was jailed for 14 years and three months.
Psychiatric tests found the man was 'normal' mentally and fully aware of what he was doing.
He was caught when a policeman came to his flat, suspecting him of stealing a mobile phone.
The officer found the dead woman - with both her legs missing - on the balcony.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
What Kind of Friend are YOU? The 13 Types on Facebook
When it comes to parties, I tend to arrive late. With Facebook, one of the centuries biggest parties, I made no exception. To be completely honest, I created an account many moons ago, but only to play Scrabble with a friend back East. He was my one and only friend. But when it came time a couple months ago to create the How Did You Know? fan page (have you joined yet?), I started spending quality time on Facebook, and eventually changed my fake Scrabble name to my real name, added a photo to my profile, and fleshed out some of the info.
So I’m a month into the party now, and I’m starting to see clear trends. Some friends fall into category A, while others B. What about you all? What kind of friend are you? Here’s the category breakdown (and drop a comment if you think I’ve missed any):
A) The Overzealous Updater
This is the friend who can’t go half a day without sharing What’s On His Mind. Honestly people. We really don’t need to know that you’ve just had your second shower of the day. For that matter, we didn’t need to hear about the first one either.
B) The Link-bot
This is the friend who does nothing but share links all day. Links to articles he’s read that he thinks the whole world should be reading, links to movie reviews, links to new games coming on the market, links to his Twitter page where he’s gone and posted 10 more links. There needs to be a limit. Some links are good, especially when they send people to this blog. But let’s impose a 2-link-max rule per day, what do you say?
C) The Groupie
This is the friend who has joined more groups than Marcia Brady did that one year in high school when she was overcommitted and frazzled. Asian Americans in Israel who Support Diplomacy with Iran? Really?
D) I Am My Kids
This is the friend who only uses Facebook to post photos of the little ones, or updates that read: “Tommy didn’t feel well today, so he stayed home from school.” Might as well not even have your own profile, just create one for the kid(s), no?
E) Spies (who used to) Like Us
This is the Ex who only friends you so s/he can spy on you and make sure you have fewer friends that s/he does, and that your new significant other is less attractive than s/he was.
F) The Wanna-Be
This is the person who friends someone with the great hope of becoming friends with that person in real life, be it a minor celeb, or just someone the Wanna-Be really admires from a slight distance.
G) The Two-facer
This is the friend who accepts your friend request just to be polite, but then Hides your updates immediately. Unfortunately, you have no idea who the two-facers are.
H) The Networker
This is the friend whose main purpose on Facebook is to build a list he can tap when he needs to for work/career. You know these friends because they only message you with e-mails that read “So you still over at Viacom?”
I) The OverPoker
No need to explain this one, right?
J) The Get-A-Lifer
This is the hardcore friend who has nothing better to do but subscribe and follow you via SMS.
K) The Attention Seeker*
This is the friend who posts status updates that are purposely vague, and therefore beg for a comment. Their status is all about getting you to respond, getting attention, getting sympathy. “Lori is scared, but hopes everything works out…” [*sent to me by my friend Dawn, who is definitely an M... see below]
L) The Over Suggester
Just stop. Okay? Let me figure out who I want to be friends with, okay? Honestly.
M) The Good Friend
This is the friend who mercifully doesn’t fit in any of the above categories and is, hopefully, just one of many normal, average facebookers you’ve friended. Let’s hear it for the Good Friend!
{Honorable mention: The Foodie — this is the friend who’s always posting updates with photos of plates of food}
{Favorite quote overheard when a friend of a Friend got a new Friend on FB — “Ah man, I’m now friends with my dad… Jesus.”}
So I’m a month into the party now, and I’m starting to see clear trends. Some friends fall into category A, while others B. What about you all? What kind of friend are you? Here’s the category breakdown (and drop a comment if you think I’ve missed any):
A) The Overzealous Updater
This is the friend who can’t go half a day without sharing What’s On His Mind. Honestly people. We really don’t need to know that you’ve just had your second shower of the day. For that matter, we didn’t need to hear about the first one either.
B) The Link-bot
This is the friend who does nothing but share links all day. Links to articles he’s read that he thinks the whole world should be reading, links to movie reviews, links to new games coming on the market, links to his Twitter page where he’s gone and posted 10 more links. There needs to be a limit. Some links are good, especially when they send people to this blog. But let’s impose a 2-link-max rule per day, what do you say?
C) The Groupie
This is the friend who has joined more groups than Marcia Brady did that one year in high school when she was overcommitted and frazzled. Asian Americans in Israel who Support Diplomacy with Iran? Really?
D) I Am My Kids
This is the friend who only uses Facebook to post photos of the little ones, or updates that read: “Tommy didn’t feel well today, so he stayed home from school.” Might as well not even have your own profile, just create one for the kid(s), no?
E) Spies (who used to) Like Us
This is the Ex who only friends you so s/he can spy on you and make sure you have fewer friends that s/he does, and that your new significant other is less attractive than s/he was.
F) The Wanna-Be
This is the person who friends someone with the great hope of becoming friends with that person in real life, be it a minor celeb, or just someone the Wanna-Be really admires from a slight distance.
G) The Two-facer
This is the friend who accepts your friend request just to be polite, but then Hides your updates immediately. Unfortunately, you have no idea who the two-facers are.
H) The Networker
This is the friend whose main purpose on Facebook is to build a list he can tap when he needs to for work/career. You know these friends because they only message you with e-mails that read “So you still over at Viacom?”
I) The OverPoker
No need to explain this one, right?
J) The Get-A-Lifer
This is the hardcore friend who has nothing better to do but subscribe and follow you via SMS.
K) The Attention Seeker*
This is the friend who posts status updates that are purposely vague, and therefore beg for a comment. Their status is all about getting you to respond, getting attention, getting sympathy. “Lori is scared, but hopes everything works out…” [*sent to me by my friend Dawn, who is definitely an M... see below]
L) The Over Suggester
Just stop. Okay? Let me figure out who I want to be friends with, okay? Honestly.
M) The Good Friend
This is the friend who mercifully doesn’t fit in any of the above categories and is, hopefully, just one of many normal, average facebookers you’ve friended. Let’s hear it for the Good Friend!
{Honorable mention: The Foodie — this is the friend who’s always posting updates with photos of plates of food}
{Favorite quote overheard when a friend of a Friend got a new Friend on FB — “Ah man, I’m now friends with my dad… Jesus.”}
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
