Thursday, May 24, 2007
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
So , Why are you FAT ?: The Real Reason.
So , even after all that dieting , why haven't you LOST weight ? Is it because you were predisposed to be fat ? Do genes make you fat ?
Read below the surprsisng findings from half a century ago...
It was 1959. Jules Hirsch, a research physician at Rockefeller University, had gotten curious about weight loss in the obese. He was about to start a simple experiment that would change forever the way scientists think about fat.
Obese people, he knew, had huge fat cells, stuffed with glistening yellow fat. What happened to those cells when people lost weight, he wondered. Did they shrink or did they go away? He decided to find out.
It seemed straightforward. Dr. Hirsch found eight people who had been fat since childhood or adolescence and who agreed to live at the Rockefeller University Hospital for eight months while scientists would control their diets, make them lose weight and then examine their fat cells.
The study was rigorous and demanding. It began with an agonizing four weeks of a maintenance diet that assessed the subjects’ metabolism and caloric needs. Then the diet began. The only food permitted was a liquid formula providing 600 calories a day, a regimen that guaranteed they would lose weight. Finally, the subjects spent another four weeks on a diet that maintained them at their new weights, 100 pounds lower than their initial weights, on average.
Dr. Hirsch answered his original question — the subjects’ fat cells had shrunk and were now normal in size. And everyone, including Dr. Hirsch, assumed that the subjects would leave the hospital permanently thinner.
That did not happen. Instead, Dr. Hirsch says, “they all regained.” He was horrified. The study subjects certainly wanted to be thin, so what went wrong? Maybe, he thought, they had some deep-seated psychological need to be fat.
So Dr. Hirsch and his colleagues, including Dr. Rudolph L. Leibel, who is now at Columbia University, repeated the experiment and repeated it again. Every time the result was the same. The weight, so painstakingly lost, came right back. But since this was a research study, the investigators were also measuring metabolic changes, psychiatric conditions, body temperature and pulse. And that led them to a surprising conclusion: fat people who lost large amounts of weight might look like someone who was never fat, but they were very different. In fact, by every metabolic measurement, they seemed like people who were starving.
Before the diet began, the fat subjects’ metabolism was normal — the number of calories burned per square meter of body surface was no different from that of people who had never been fat. But when they lost weight, they were burning as much as 24 percent fewer calories per square meter of their surface area than the calories consumed by those who were naturally thin.
The Rockefeller subjects also had a psychiatric syndrome, called semi-starvation neurosis, which had been noticed before in people of normal weight who had been starved. They dreamed of food, they fantasized about food or about breaking their diet. They were anxious and depressed; some had thoughts of suicide. They secreted food in their rooms. And they binged.
The Rockefeller researchers explained their observations in one of their papers: “It is entirely possible that weight reduction, instead of resulting in a normal state for obese patients, results in an abnormal state resembling that of starved nonobese individuals.”
Eventually, more than 50 people lived at the hospital and lost weight, and every one had physical and psychological signs of starvation. There were a very few who did not get fat again, but they made staying thin their life’s work, becoming Weight Watchers lecturers, for example, and, always, counting calories and maintaining themselves in a permanent state of starvation.
“Did those who stayed thin simply have more willpower?” Dr. Hirsch asked. “In a funny way, they did.”
One way to interpret Dr. Hirsch and Dr. Leibel’s studies would be to propose that once a person got fat, the body would adjust, making it hopeless to lose weight and keep it off. The issue was important, because if getting fat was the problem, there might be a solution to the obesity epidemic: convince people that any weight gain was a step toward an irreversible condition that they most definitely did not want to have.
But another group of studies showed that that hypothesis, too, was wrong.
It began with studies that were the inspiration of Dr. Ethan Sims at the University of Vermont, who asked what would happen if thin people who had never had a weight problem deliberately got fat.
His subjects were prisoners at a nearby state prison who volunteered to gain weight. With great difficulty, they succeeded, increasing their weight by 20 percent to 25 percent. But it took them four to six months, eating as much as they could every day. Some consumed 10,000 calories a day, an amount so incredible that it would be hard to believe, were it not for the fact that there were attendants present at each meal who dutifully recorded everything the men ate.
Once the men were fat, their metabolisms increased by 50 percent. They needed more than 2,700 calories per square meter of their body surface to stay fat but needed just 1,800 calories per square meter to maintain their normal weight.
When the study ended, the prisoners had no trouble losing weight. Within months, they were back to normal and effortlessly stayed there.
The implications were clear. There is a reason that fat people cannot stay thin after they diet and that thin people cannot stay fat when they force themselves to gain weight. The body’s metabolism speeds up or slows down to keep weight within a narrow range. Gain weight and the metabolism can as much as double; lose weight and it can slow to half its original speed.
That, of course, was contrary to what every scientist had thought, and Dr. Sims knew it, as did Dr. Hirsch.
The message never really got out to the nation’s dieters, but a few research scientists were intrigued and asked the next question about body weight: Is body weight inherited, or is obesity more of an inadvertent, almost unconscious response to a society where food is cheap, abundant and tempting? An extra 100 calories a day will pile on 10 pounds in a year, public health messages often say. In five years, that is 50 pounds.
The assumption was that environment determined weight, but Dr. Albert Stunkard of the University of Pennsylvania wondered if that was true and, if so, to what extent. It was the early 1980s, long before obesity became what one social scientist called a moral panic, but a time when those questions of nature versus nurture were very much on Dr. Stunkard’s mind.
He found the perfect tool for investigating the nature-nurture question — a Danish registry of adoptees developed to understand whether schizophrenia was inherited. It included meticulous medical records of every Danish adoption between 1927 and 1947, including the names of the adoptees’ biological parents, and the heights and weights of the adoptees, their biological parents and their adoptive parents.
Dr. Stunkard ended up with 540 adults whose average age was 40. They had been adopted when they were very young — 55 percent had been adopted in the first month of life and 90 percent were adopted in the first year of life. His conclusions, published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 1986, were unequivocal. The adoptees were as fat as their biological parents, and how fat they were had no relation to how fat their adoptive parents were.
The scientists summarized it in their paper: “The two major findings of this study were that there was a clear relation between the body-mass index of biologic parents and the weight class of adoptees, suggesting that genetic influences are important determinants of body fatness; and that there was no relation between the body-mass index of adoptive parents and the weight class of adoptees, suggesting that childhood family environment alone has little or no effect.”
In other words, being fat was an inherited condition.
Dr. Stunkard also pointed out the implications: “Current efforts to prevent obesity are directed toward all children (and their parents) almost indiscriminately. Yet if family environment alone has no role in obesity, efforts now directed toward persons with little genetic risk of the disorder could be refocused on the smaller number who are more vulnerable. Such persons can already be identified with some assurance: 80 percent of the offspring of two obese parents become obese, as compared with no more than 14 percent of the offspring of two parents of normal weight.”
A few years later, in 1990, Dr. Stunkard published another study in The New England Journal of Medicine, using another classic method of geneticists: investigating twins. This time, he used the Swedish Twin Registry, studying its 93 pairs of identical twins who were reared apart, 154 pairs of identical twins who were reared together, 218 pairs of fraternal twins who were reared apart, and 208 pairs of fraternal twins who were reared together.
The identical twins had nearly identical body mass indexes, whether they had been reared apart or together. There was more variation in the body mass indexes of the fraternal twins, who, like any siblings, share some, but not all, genes.
The researchers concluded that 70 percent of the variation in peoples’ weights may be accounted for by inheritance, a figure that means that weight is more strongly inherited than nearly any other condition, including mental illness, breast cancer or heart disease.
The results did not mean that people are completely helpless to control their weight, Dr. Stunkard said. But, he said, it did mean that those who tend to be fat will have to constantly battle their genetic inheritance if they want to reach and maintain a significantly lower weight.
The findings also provided evidence for a phenomenon that scientists like Dr. Hirsch and Dr. Leibel were certain was true — each person has a comfortable weight range to which the body gravitates. The range might span 10 or 20 pounds: someone might be able to weigh 120 to 140 pounds without too much effort. Going much above or much below the natural weight range is difficult, however; the body resists by increasing or decreasing the appetite and changing the metabolism to push the weight back to the range it seeks.
The message is so at odds with the popular conception of weight loss — the mantra that all a person has to do is eat less and exercise more — that Dr. Jeffrey Friedman, an obesity researcher at the Rockefeller University, tried to come up with an analogy that would convey what science has found about the powerful biological controls over body weight.
He published it in the journal Science in 2003 and still cites it:
“Those who doubt the power of basic drives, however, might note that although one can hold one’s breath, this conscious act is soon overcome by the compulsion to breathe,” Dr. Friedman wrote. “The feeling of hunger is intense and, if not as potent as the drive to breathe, is probably no less powerful than the drive to drink when one is thirsty. This is the feeling the obese must resist after they have lost a significant amount of weight.”
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Monday, May 21, 2007
Being A Man
Hey Men , Do You Agree with Neil Strauss's view of Male Sexuality ?
Mostly Yes.
Mostly No.
I'm Not Sure.
None Of your Bloody Business !
Mostly Yes.
0
Mostly No.
1
I'm Not Sure.
0
None Of your Bloody Business !
0
An excerpt from "The Game "
Author : Neil Strauss
Male sexuality on the surface may seem like it runs rampant in society-there are strip clubs , porn websites , Maxim-style magazines , and titillating advertisements everywhere.But , despite all this , true male desire is often kept repressed.
Men think about sex more than they will ever admit to women ,or to each other .Teachers think about fucking their students , fathers think about fucking their daughter's friends, doctors think about fucking their patients.And Right now , for every woman with an iota of sex appeal (that means you , if you are a female reading this !) , there's probably a man somewhere in the world who's touching himself and thinking about what it would be like to fuck her.She may not even know him : He may be that businessman who walked past her in the street or the college student who sat across her on the subway.And any man who tells a woman otherwise is most likely doing so because he's trying to get in her pants , or pants of someone else within earshot.The great lie of modern dating is that in order to sleep with a woman , a man must pretend initially as if he doesn't want to !
Most appalling to woman is the male obsession with strippers , porn stars and teenage girls.It is abhorrent because it threatens a woman's reality .if all men really desire a woman like that , where does that leave her marriage and happily ever after fantasies? She is doomed to live them with a man who really wants a Victoria's secret model or the neighbour's daughter or that dominatrix in the video he hides in his closet.As a woman ages , an 18 year old will always remain 18 .Love is dashed on the rocks in the face of the possibility that a man doesn't want a person but a body.
Fortunately , this is not the entire truth .Men are visual thinkers , thus we're often deceived by our eyes.But the truth is that fantasy is often better than reality.Most men eventually learn that lesson.
Men are not dogs, We merely think we are and , on occasion , act as if we are.But , by believing in our nobler nature , women have the amazing power to inspire us to live up to it.This is the reason why men tend to fear commitment and sometimes , even rebel against it by endeavoring to bring out the worst in a woman.
A few Personal comments.
Though Neil Strauss is trying to represent all men -folk , I feel like I don't fit in.
First of all , despite the recent posts claiming otherwise , I'm all for love (before sex)
And I don't think of fucking every other girl/woman just because I happen to find her attractive/beautiful/sexy/slutty /hot(Be my guest , add your own adjective)
And , NO, I'm not saying this because I'm trying to get into some girls pants (or what ever she might be wearing).I don't have a secret agenda here.I just think Neil Strauss is misrepresenting us.(or at least me) Any comments?
Also , for some reason , I think I was born monogamous.Don't ask me how or why .
Men are visual thinkers.But here i deviate a bit.A part from visual thinking , I;m my large an aural thinker.I think and hear my thoughts , and for posterity , I record them : in a diary , notebook , my journal , a scrap of paper , my voice recorder, and sometimes my blog.
I'm firmly grounded in my reality, or at least my perception of it, stripped away from all of its fantasies and other such deceptions.I hate it when my perceptions are altered-thus I hate alcohol , nicotine and any other drug.
I'm not afraid that I may never find true love , or that I might die alone.I was born alone , I will die alone.We all ultimately die alone.
My best friend calls me a "Weirdo".I reject my moniker , my labeling.I'm not weird .I may be complex and complicated .But not weird.I'm just ME.
Finally Men are not dogs, neither are they martians.Men are simply men.Live with that.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
An Amputee Sprinter: Is He Disabled or Too-Abled?
An Amputee Sprinter: Is He Disabled or Too-Abled?
MANCHESTER, England, May 14 — As Oscar Pistorius of South Africa crouched in the starting blocks for the 200 meters on Sunday, the small crowd turned its attention to the sprinter who calls himself the fastest man on no legs.
Pistorius wants to be the first amputee runner to compete in the Olympics. But despite his ascendance, he is facing resistance from track and field’s world governing body, which is seeking to bar him on the grounds that the technology of his prosthetics may give him an unfair advantage over sprinters using their natural legs.
His first strides were choppy Sunday, a necessary accommodation to sprinting on a pair of j-shaped blades made of carbon fiber and known as Cheetahs. Pistorius was born without the fibula in his lower legs and with other defects in his feet. He had both legs amputated below the knee when he was 11 months old. At 20, his coach says, he is like a five-speed engine with no second gear.
Yet Pistorius is also a searing talent who has begun erasing the lines between abled and disabled, raising philosophical questions: What should an athlete look like? Where should limits be placed on technology to balance fair play with the right to compete? Would the nature of sport be altered if athletes using artificial limbs could run faster or jump higher than the best athletes using their natural limbs?
Once at full speed Sunday, Pistorius handily won the 100 and 200 meters here at the Paralympic World Cup, an international competition for disabled athletes. A cold, rainy afternoon tempered his performances, but his victories came decisively and kept him aimed toward his goal of the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing, even though international track officials seek to block his entrance.
Since March, Pistorius has delivered startling record performances for disabled athletes at 100 meters (10.91 seconds), 200 meters (21.58 seconds) and 400 meters (46.34 seconds). Those times do not meet Olympic qualifying standards for men, but the Beijing Games are still 15 months away. Already, Pistorius is fast enough that his marks would have won gold medals in equivalent women’s races at the 2004 Athens Olympics.
Pistorius’s time of 46.56 in the 400 earned him a second-place finish in March against able-bodied runners at the South African national championships. This seemingly makes him a candidate for the Olympic 4x400-meter relay should South Africa qualify as one of the world’s 16 fastest teams.
“I don’t see myself as disabled,” said the blond, spiky-haired Pistorius, a former rugby and water polo player who declines to park in spaces reserved for the disabled. “There’s nothing I can’t do that able-bodied athletes can do.”
An Equalizer or an Edge?
Still, the question persists: Do prosthetic legs simply level the playing field for Pistorius, compensating for his disability, or do they give him an inequitable edge via what some call techno-doping?
Experts say there have been limited scientific studies on the biomechanics of amputee runners, especially those missing both legs. And because Pistorius lost his legs as an infant, his speed on carbon-fiber legs cannot be compared with his speed on natural legs.
Track and field’s world governing body, based in Monaco and known by the initials I.A.A.F., has recently prohibited the use of technological aids like springs and wheels, disqualifying Pistorius from events that it sanctions. A final ruling is expected in August.
The International Olympic Committee allows governing bodies to make their own eligibility rules, though it can intervene. Since 2004, for example, transgender athletes have been allowed to compete in the Olympics.
“With all due respect, we cannot accept something that provides advantages,” said Elio Locatelli of Italy, the director of development for the I.A.A.F., urging Pistorius to concentrate on the Paralympics that will follow the Olympics in Beijing. “It affects the purity of sport. Next will be another device where people can fly with something on their back.”
Others have questioned the governing body’s motivation.
“I pose a question” for the I.A.A.F., said Robert Gailey, an associate professor of physical therapy at the University of Miami Medical School, who has studied amputee runners. “Are they looking at not having an unfair advantage? Or are they discriminating because of the purity of the Olympics, because they don’t want to see a disabled man line up against an able-bodied man for fear that if the person who doesn’t have the perfect body wins, what does that say about the image of man?”
According to Gailey, a prosthetic leg returns only about 80 percent of the energy absorbed in each stride, while a natural leg returns up to 240 percent, providing much more spring.
“There is no science that he has an advantage, only that he is competing at a disadvantage,” Gailey, who has served as an official in disabled sports, said of Pistorius.
Foremost among the I.A.A.F.’s concerns is that Pistorius’s prosthetic limbs may make him taller than he would have been on natural legs and may unfairly lengthen his stride, allowing him to lower his best times by several seconds in the past three years, while most elite sprinters improve by hundredths of a second.
“The rule book says a foot has to be in contact with the starting block,” Leon Fleiser, a general manager of the South African Olympic Committee, said. “What is the definition of a foot? Is a prosthetic device a foot, or is it an actual foot?”
I.A.A.F. officials have also expressed concern that Pistorius could topple over, obstructing others or injuring himself and fellow competitors. Some also fear that, without limits on technological aids, able-bodied runners could begin wearing carbon-fiber plates or other unsuitably springy devices in their shoes.
Among ethicists, Pistorius’s success has spurred talk of “transhumans” and “cyborgs.” Some note that athletes already modify themselves in a number of ways, including baseball sluggers who undergo laser eye surgery to enhance their vision and pitchers who have elbow reconstruction using sturdier ligaments from elsewhere in the body. At least three disabled athletes have competed in the Summer Olympics: George Eyser, an American, won a gold medal in gymnastics while competing on a wooden leg at the 1904 Games in St. Louis; Neroli Fairhall, a paraplegic from New Zealand, competed in archery in the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles; and Marla Runyan, a legally blind runner from the United States, competed in the 1,500 meters at the 2000 Olympics in Sydney. But Pistorius would be the first amputee to compete in a track event, international officials said.
A sobering question was posed recently on the Web site of the Connecticut-based Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. “Given the arms race nature of competition,” will technological advantages cause “athletes to do something as seemingly radical as having their healthy natural limbs replaced by artificial ones?” wrote George Dvorsky, a member of the institute’s board of directors. “Is it self-mutilation when you’re getting a better limb?”
Limits and Accommodations
Historically, the I.A.A.F. has placed limits on devices that assist athletes. It prohibits an array of performance-enhancing drugs. And it does not allow wheelchair athletes into the Olympic marathon, given that wheels provide a clear advantage in speed.
But the governing body has also embraced technological advances. For instance, it permits athletes to sleep in tent-like devices designed to simulate high altitude and increase oxygen-carrying capacity.
As disabled athletes improve their performances, the I.A.A.F. is certain to be faced with more decisions about accommodating them. Last February, Jeff Skiba, who has one leg amputated below the knee, competed in the high jump at the United States indoor track and field championships.
Some I.A.A.F. officials say Pistorius’s application should not be treated dismissively. Although he would not be considered a medal candidate, his appearance at the Beijing Games could provide an inspiring story.
“There is no real grounds to say he should not be allowed to compete” in the Olympics, said Juan Manuel Alonso of Spain, who heads the I.A.A.F.’s medical and antidoping commission. “We’d like to have more information and biomechanical studies.”
His own fear, Pistorius said, is that the governing body, which has not contacted him, will ban him on supposition, not science.
“I think they’re afraid to do the research,” Pistorius, a business student at the University of Pretoria, said. “They’re afraid of what they’re going to find, that I don’t have an advantage and they’ll have to let me compete.”
Pistorius, whose stated height is 6 feet 1 ¼ inches while wearing his sprinting prosthetics, says that the devices are within an allowed range determined by the length of his thighs. The peak length of his stride, he said, is 9 feet, not 13 feet as some I.A.A.F. officials suggest.
There are many disadvantages to sprinting on carbon-fiber legs, Pistorius and his coach said. After a cumbersome start, he needs about 30 meters to gain his rhythm. His knees do not flex as readily, limiting his power output. His grip can be unsure in the rain. And when he runs into a headwind or grows fatigued, he must fight rotational forces that turn his prosthetic devices sideways, said Ampie Louw, who coaches Pistorius.
“The I.A.A.F. has got no clue about disabled sport,” said Louw, who has coached Pistorius since 2003.
Insufficient credit is given to Pistorius’s resolve in the weight room and on the track, Louw said, describing one intense workout that requires him to run 350 meters in 42 seconds; 300 meters in 34.6 seconds; 200 meters in 22 seconds and 150 meters in 15.4 seconds. “The kid is a born champion,” Louw said. “He doesn’t settle for second best.”
Having worn prosthetics since infancy, Pistorius did not have to adjust to artificial legs after he began competing, as many disabled athletes do. He won a gold medal in the 200 at the 2004 Paralympics in Athens.
“These have always been my legs,” he said. “I train harder than other guys, eat better, sleep better and wake up thinking about athletics. I think that’s probably why I’m a bit of an exception.”
One who is attempting to broaden the definition of an Olympic athlete.
“You have two competing issues — fair competition and basic human rights to compete,” said Angela Schneider, a sports ethicist at the University of Western Ontario and a 1984 Olympic silver medalist in rowing.
The I.A.A.F. must objectively define when prosthetic devices “go from therapy to enhancement,” Schneider said. The danger of acting hastily, she said, is “you deny a guy’s struggle against all odds — one of the fundamental principles of the Olympics.”
Saturday, May 19, 2007
The Game
The GameIn The Game, Strauss tells the tale of his transformation into "Style," a pickup artist under the tutelage of Mystery. The book charts two years in his life. In addition to documenting his experiences with pickup artists like Mystery and Ross Jeffries, it also describes his interactions with celebrities including Britney Spears, Tom Cruise, and Courtney Love. Strauss writes of his distrust of pickup artists "Tyler Durden" and "Papa," the founders of Real Social Dynamics. In promoting his book, Neil appeared on various TV shows, including The View[4] and ABC Primetime. [5]
The seduction community
In the seduction community, Strauss is known by the pseudonym "Style" (also known as "Chris Powles"). Three years after he had joined the community, he published an article in the New York Times about his experiences[6]. Strauss retired as a pickup artist and settled with a long-term girlfriend Lisa Leveridge, who plays guitar in Courtney Love's all-female band The Chelsea.[7] An article in the Sunday Mirror, however, suggested that Leveridge broke up with Strauss in February 2006 to date Robbie Williams.[8] A more recent article in Ireland Online seems to indicate that she has broken up with Williams as well.[9] Strauss has yet to comment. Strauss did however include this piece in one of his recent emails (12th of November) "Lisa still hasn't forgiven me for saying she had a U-shaped smile. :-)".
At the end of 2005, Strauss passed his knowledge, which he has titled the "Annihilation Method", to 5 selected followers at a three-day seminar at his California home. He recently sold 375 exclusive copies of the "Annihilation Method" program to those who arrived first on his website, only375.com. Strauss completed an interview with the popular seduction blog The Attraction Chronicles in mid-June 2006 that helped to give members of the community a glimpse into his goals and future influence in the seduction community.[10]
Stylelife Challenge
On May 31, 2006, through Neil Strauss' VIP mailing list, Strauss announced the Stylelife Challenge [1]. The challenge was for those who have trouble with women to get a date in 31 days or less. During the entire month of July 2006, participants were given daily challenges on the Stylelife website[2]. These challenges were designed to help men change their look and overcome their fears and hopefully get a date within the allotted time limit. While the primary goal was simply for participants to get a date, the most improved won a week-end in San Diego with the famous guru 'Hypnotica' (see 'Rasputin' in the Game). The Grand prize winner was "Taste".
Stylelife Academy
On March 10, 2007, through Stylelife's mailing list, Strauss announced the Stylelife Academy[3]. The Stylelife Academy is the first online school for self-improvement and attraction. Enrolled students study a variety of subjects ranging from mind-shaping, to body language, to story telling, to being a good conversationalist in daily online classes.
Also try out his homepage : http://www.neilstrauss.com/
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Kurt Vonnegut is The Resident's People
The Res reads passages that focus on her latest obsessive topic, global warming, from her favorite author's latest book.
For more info on the show, visit www.theresident.net.
Thanks to the best rock band on Earth, The Sound of Urchin, for use of their song, "Don't Walk Me Down That Road." More info on them at www.soundofurchin.com
T-Shirt Folding
Secret ninjas taught me the best method for folding T-shirts. I am a little scared now.
Amores Payasos
Can anyone find love in New York City?
DP - Ben Zimbric Editor - Gavin Rosenberg Music - Greg Tannen
Dir. Brad Aldous
The Secret
The Secret
By Rhonda Byrne
Book Description
Fragments of a Great Secret have been found in the oral traditions, in literature, in religions and philosophies throughout the centuries. For the first time, all the pieces of The Secret come together in an incredible revelation that will be life-transforming for all who experience it.
In this book, you'll learn how to use The Secret in every aspect of your life -- money, health, relationships, happiness, and in every interaction you have in the world. You'll begin to understand the hidden, untapped power that's within you, and this revelation can bring joy to every aspect of your life.
The Secret contains wisdom from modern-day teachers -- men and women who have used it to achieve health, wealth, and happiness. By applying the knowledge of The Secret, they bring to light compelling stories of eradicating disease, acquiring massive wealth, overcoming obstacles, and achieving what many would regard as impossible.
From the Publisher
The Secret is truly the most outstanding book to date that we have published. I am so pleased that Rhonda Byrne was able to bring together this life-changing information so masterfully. She first did it for the movie of the same name that she produced, which has been a phenomenon in its own right. She then added, in only ones month's time, incredible additional content to the transcript of the film that brings even more clarity to the reader. This is absolutely a book that people from all walks of life can read and then "get" the concept of The Secret. It allows them to then take it and apply it to their lives. Children, teenagers and adults of all ages are reporting miraculous stories of positive changes as a result. Rhonda Byrne is dedicated to maintaining the integrity of The Secret and to making sure that now, finally, the whole world knows about The Secret. You will want to share this with your friends and family and they will be grateful for it. This book gives hope for what many have been waiting for-- a shift in the way the world thinks. Its a very exciting time that we are living in, and I as well as everyone at Beyond Words and Atria Books are grateful to be a part of it.
--Cynthia Black, President, Beyond Words Publishing
To visit their official site:
Global Warming Myths
Myth: Carbon dioxide levels only rose after the start of warm periods, so CO2 does not cause warming
Samples of ice dating back hundreds of thousands of years have been extracted from the sheets covering Antarctica and Greenland. These cores show that at the end of recent ice ages, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere often did not start to rise until temperatures had already been climbing for some time. There is uncertainty about the precise timing, partly because the air trapped in the cores is younger than the ice itself, but it appears the lags might sometimes have been 800 years or more.
These lags show that rising CO2 did not trigger the initial warming at the end of these ice ages - but then, no one claims it did. They do not undermine the idea that more CO2 in the atmosphere warms the planet.
We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas because it absorbs and emits infrared. Fairly basic physics proves that such gases will trap heat radiating from Earth, and that the planet would be a lot colder if this did not happen.
This does not mean that there will be a perfect correlation between past temperature and past CO2 levels. Many other factors also affect the climate: when there are big changes in these factors, the relationship between CO2 and temperature will be obscured.
So why, over the past million years or so, has Earth repeatedly switched between ice ages and warmer periods? The long-held theory is that this is due to variations in Earth's orbit - known as Milankovitch cycles - that change the amount and location of solar energy reaching Earth. These correspond with most - but not all - climate transitions
This suggests that some kind of feedback effect amplified the initial changes in temperatures. The ice itself is one contender here. As vast ice sheets started to shrink, less of the sun's energy would have been reflected back into space, accelerating the warming.
The possibility that CO2 also plays a role was suggested more than a century ago. The ice cores show that there is a remarkable correlation between CO2 levels and temperature over the past half-million years. It takes about 5000 years for an ice age to end and, after the initial lag, temperature and CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere rise together for at least 4000-odd years.
What seems to have happened at the end of ice ages is that an initial warming due to orbital shifts led to more CO2 being released into the atmosphere, resulting in further warming that caused still more CO2 to be released and so on. As the area of ice shrank, temperatures rose still higher.
Where did the extra CO2 come from? The evidence suggests it was from the oceans. The gas is less soluble in warmer water, so warmer seas release it into the air, but this can explain only a little of the increase. Another factor may have been biological: phytoplankton in the seas soak up CO2 as they grow and fall to the ocean floor, but as the world warmed changes in winds, currents and salinity would have cut the phytoplankton's growth.
While CO2 was only a secondary player in the ice ages, further back in time there are examples of warming triggered by rises in CO2 (see below). What the ice ages tell us is that temperature can influence CO2 levels as well as vice versa, which is a cause for concern. At the moment, the oceans are soaking up 40 per cent of the extra CO2 we are emitting. If they switch to emitting CO2 instead, cuts in human emissions will make little difference.
Half-truth: It has been warmer in the past, so what's the big deal?
FIRST, it needs to be said that everything we think we know about global temperatures before about 150 years ago is an estimate - a reconstruction based on second-hand evidence such as ice cores and a set of assumptions. The further back we look, the greater the uncertainties.
It is certainly true that Earth has experienced some extremes that were warmer than today. In some cases the main factors that caused these climatic variations are well understood, though not in all.
From 750 million to 580 million years ago, Earth was in the grip of an ice age more extreme than any since. At times the whole planet may have been covered in ice and snow, a phenomenon known as Snowball Earth.
Why did this happen? The balance between two opposing effects may have been crucial. The growth of ice sheets can lead to extra cooling as more of the sun's heat gets reflected back into space. However, ice on land blocks the weathering of rocks, a process that removes CO2 from the atmosphere. Snowball Earth may have come about because the continents were then clustered on the equator: weathering would have continued to remove CO2 even as ice sheets spread from the poles. Only when most of the land was iced over would greenhouse gases have started to build up.
After this deep freeze, there were long periods when both greenhouse gas levels and temperatures were higher than they are today, though there is great uncertainty about the details
Isotope levels in fossil plankton show the warming was caused by the release of massive amounts of methane or CO2. The latest theory is that this was due to lava from a massive volcanic eruption heating coal deposits. In other words, this may be an example of catastrophic global warming caused by the sudden release of massive quantities of fossil carbon into the atmosphere. The warm period lasted 200,000 years.
Over the past few million years Earth has switched between ice ages and warmer interglacials. These periodic changes seem to be triggered by oscillations in the planet's orbit that alter the amount of solar radiation reaching Earth
In between ice ages, there have been several temperature peaks, notably during the Eemian interglacial around 125,000 years ago. At this time, temperatures may have been 1 to 2 °C warmer than today, and the sea level was 5 to 8 metres higher than it is now.
"
"During the Eemian, it was 1 °C warmer and sea level was 5 to 8 metres higher
After the last ice age, there was another peak around 6000 years ago called the Holocene Climatic Optimum. This warming appears to have been largely regional, though, and temperatures were probably not much higher than in recent decades, if at all.
Do these past periods of natural warming mean we can dismiss the rapid warming over the past few years as more of the same? The answer is no. Natural factors such as changes in the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth can explain only a small part of the recent warming.
Nor does the fact that it has been warmer in the past mean that future warming is nothing to worry about. The sea level has been tens of metres higher during past warm periods - enough to submerge many major cities.
Half-truth: Human carbon dioxide emissions are tiny compared with natural sources
YES, it's true that CO2 emissions due to human activity are small compared with most natural sources. Yet ice cores show that levels in the atmosphere have remained fairly steady at between 180 and 300 parts per million for the past half-million years, only to shoot up to more than 380 ppm since the industrial age began.
How is this possible? The answer is that natural sources are balanced by natural sinks
How can we be sure that we are responsible for the extra CO2? There are several lines of evidence. For instance, fossil fuels contain virtually no carbon-14, because this unstable isotope, formed when cosmic rays hit the atmosphere, has a half-life of around 6000 years. Nearly all the carbon-14 in a fossil fuel will have long decayed by the time we burn the fuel, so the resulting CO2 will contain almost no carbon-14 too. Studies of tree rings have shown that the proportion of carbon-14 in the air dropped by about 2 per cent between 1850 and 1954 (after 1954, nuclear tests released large amounts of carbon-14).
Finally, claims that volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities are simply not true. CO2 levels around the world do not rise after major eruptions. Total emissions from volcanoes on land are estimated to average just 0.3 gigatonnes of CO2 each year - about a hundredth of human emissions - and are balanced by the carbon carried under tectonic plates in subducted ocean sediments.
"
"Claims that volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities are not true
Myth: It's too cold where I live. A bit of warming will be great
HOW will climate warming affect you? It depends on where you live, how long you live, what you do for a living and for recreation - and whether you care about the future of your children, or humanity in general.
Just about every part of the planet except Antarctica has warmed since the 1970s. Glaciers are melting, spring is coming earlier and the ranges of many plants and animals are shifting polewards.
For most people, this has made little difference. We may have sweltered through more heatwaves, but winters have been milder. The next decade or two will also be a mixed bag. Heating bills will go down, air conditioning bills will go up. Heatwaves may cause some deaths but there will be fewer cold-related deaths.
This does not sound too bad, and for many people it won't be. In cooler regions the benefits could outweigh the downsides, depending on your point of view. Wealthy individuals and countries will be able to adapt to most short-term changes, whether it means buying an air conditioner or switching to crops better suited to a warmer climate and changing rainfall patterns. Overall, agricultural yields could increase at first. Some regions will suffer, however, and soon: Africa will fare worst, with yields predicted to halve in some countries as early as 2020.
Wildlife will also be in trouble. Certain plants and animals will thrive as CO2 rises, but at the expense of others. Coral reefs, which are already suffering frequent bleaching episodes, will be especially hard hit.
Things will become increasingly dire as temperatures climb to 3 °C above present levels, which could happen long before the end of the century in the worst-case scenario. More than a third of species will face extinction. Agricultural yields will fall in most parts of the world. Millions will be at risk from coastal flooding. Heatwaves, droughts, floods and wildfires will take an ever heavier toll.
There are two factors to bear in mind when thinking about the outcomes of warming. Firstly, even countries that escape the worst direct effects will feel the economic and political fallout from what happens elsewhere. Secondly, there is a time lag between a rise in greenhouse gases and their full effect on climate. Even if CO2 levels were stabilised tomorrow, the world would continue to warm for decades.
There is an even longer lag between any warming and its full effect on sea level. The IPCC is predicting a rise of 0.6 metres at most by 2100, but this will be just the start. Three million years ago, when the temperature was 2 to 3 °C higher, sea level was 25 metres higher - more than enough to inundate New York, London, Tokyo and Shanghai. A similar temperature increase will eventually lead to a similar rise in sea level. The IPCC assumes this will take many centuries, but some think it could happen much sooner due to the catastrophic collapse of ice sheets.
What's clear is that the longer we delay effective action, the harder it will be to prevent catastrophic climate change.
Myth: It's all down to cosmic rays
NO ONE denies the crucial influence of the sun on Earth's climate. The total amount of energy reaching Earth varies, but recent variations cannot explain the recent warming. What if changes in other forms of solar activity have larger-than-expected effects on the climate, though?
In the late 1990s, Danish scientists revived the idea that the high-energy particles known as cosmic rays might influence cloud formation by ionising the atmosphere. If so, this could amplify the effect of small changes in solar activity on the climate. Though most cosmic rays come from deep space, changes in solar activity can alter the number that reach Earth. When there are many sunspots, the sun's magnetic field strengthens, deflecting more of the cosmic rays in the solar system.
Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National Space Center claims that fewer cosmic rays would mean fewer clouds, so warming Earth. He thinks this effect explains the recent warming, arguing the case in a book he wrote with science journalist Nigel Calder (who edited New Scientist from 1962 to 1966).
There are at least three separate issues here. Firstly, do cosmic rays really trigger cloud formation? Secondly, if they do, how do the changes in cloud cover affect temperature? Finally, can this explain the warming trend of the past few decades?
The hypothesis is that the ionisation of air by cosmic rays imparts an electric charge to aerosols that encourages them to clump together; the clumps become large enough to trigger the condensation of water, and hence clouds form. As yet there is no convincing evidence that such clumping occurs. Experiments under way at the CERN particle physics laboratory near Geneva should settle the issue, but will not reveal if it matters in the real world: the atmosphere already has plenty of cloud condensation nuclei, so it is not clear why cosmic rays should have any great effect on cloud formation.
A series of attempts by Svensmark to show an effect have come unstuck. Most recently, he has claimed there is a correlation between low-altitude cloud cover and cosmic rays. Yet a correlation does not prove cause and effect. What's more, the correlation holds up after 1995 only if data is "corrected", and others in the field say this correction is not justified
Then there is the question of how clouds and climate interact. Svensmark claims the overall effect of less cloud cover is a warmer world in which the extra heat that clear skies allow in during the day outweighs the increased heat losses at night. Not all scientists agree with this reasoning, as even during the day many clouds in the upper atmosphere can in fact have a warming effect.
Finally, and most importantly, even if changes in cosmic ray intensity do turn out to influence cloud cover and temperature, they cannot explain the rapid warming of the past few decades. Direct measurements going back 50 years show a periodic variation in intensity, but no downward trend coinciding with the recent warming
Indirect measurements of cosmic rays, based on the abundance of certain isotopes, suggest that their intensity fell between 1900 and 1950. While there can be a lag between a big change in a climate "forcing" and its full effect on temperature, most warming should occur within a few years and taper off within decades. This is not the pattern we see.
Half-truth: Antarctica is getting cooler and the ice sheets are getting thicker
IT IS clear that the Antarctic Peninsula, which juts out from the mainland, has warmed. The continent's interior was thought to have warmed too, but in 2002 an analysis of records from 1966 to 2000 concluded that it had cooled.
This is not, as sometimes claimed, proof that the world is not warming. Climate models do not predict uniform warming of the whole planet, and almost every other part of the world is getting warmer.
The cooling in Antarctica is due to a strengthening of the circular winds around the continent, which prevents warmer air reaching the interior. Confusingly, the increased wind speeds seem to be due to cooling in the upper atmosphere caused by the hole in the ozone layer above the pole - the result of chlorofluorocarbon emissions. If the ozone layer recovers over the next few decades as expected, the circular winds could weaken, resulting in rapid warming.
This raises the question of what is happening to Antarctica's ice sheets, which hold enough water to raise sea levels by a catastrophic 61 metres. Contrary to what you might expect, the latest IPCC report continues to predict that global warming will lead to a thickening of the ice sheet over the next century, with heavier snowfall outweighing any melting.
Finding out what is actually happening to the ice is not easy. A recent study based on satellite measurements of gravity over the continent suggests that while the ice sheets in the interior of Antarctica are growing thicker, even more ice is being lost from the peripheries, resulting in a net loss.
The IPCC's latest predictions of sea level rise - 20 to 60 centimetres by 2100 - assume that the rate of ice loss from the edges of both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets continues at the current rate. Some researchers think this is unrealistic and that the ice loss will accelerate, outpacing any increases in snowfall and leading to a much more rapid rise in sea level. No one knows for sure what will happen.
Myth: It was warmer during the Middle Ages than it is now, with vineyards in England
ENGLISH winemaking is once again thriving: the extent of the country's vineyards probably surpasses that in the so-called Medieval Warm Period. So if you think this is an accurate indicator of climate, it must be warmer now than it was then.
Historical anecdotes about climate have to be treated with caution. The frost fairs that were held in London when the Thames froze over are sometimes hailed as proof of how cold it was during the Little Ice Age from around AD 1500 to 1850. In fact, the slowing of the river by the old London Bridge, demolished in 1831, was a crucial factor in its freezing - which is why the Thames did not freeze in London in the winter of 1963, even though it was the third-coldest in England since 1659.
To work out how average global temperature has changed over the centuries, climate scientists need long-term records from as many different parts of the world as possible, which is why they have turned to indicators such as growth rings in trees. There are now a dozen or so temperature reconstructions for the northern hemisphere that go back beyond 1600. These studies show periods of unusual warmth from around AD 900 to 1300, but the details vary.
In the southern hemisphere, there is evidence of both warm and cool periods around this time. This suggests the Medieval Warm Period was partly a regional phenomenon, caused by a redistribution of heat around the planet as well as a small rise in the average global temperature.
The reconstructions and other evidence show that the planet is warmer now than at any time during the medieval period
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Bar da Boa
http://www.tatuagemdaboa.com.br
The Beer commercial , where you can put your name and your friends name on a beautiful model.
The Beer commercial , where you can put your name and your friends name on a beautiful model.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Extreme (Photoshop) Makeover
A photographer and designer shows the photo retouching process in detail.
FREE WI-FI INTERNET 4 ALL
You dream of getting free internet? look this video, maybe you got some hot neighbor with wireless rooter not secure.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
More Sex Is Safer Sex
I had no intentions of buying this book , so I basically speed-read it and finished it in about 35 minutes.
Here is the opening chapter of this controversial book by an economist.
More Sex Is Safer Sex
The economic case for promiscuity.
It's true: AIDS is nature's awful retribution for our tolerance of immoderate and socially irresponsible sexual behavior. The epidemic is the price of our permissive attitudes toward monogamy, chastity, and other forms of sexual conservatism.
You've read elsewhere about the sin of promiscuity. Let me tell you about the sin of self-restraint.
Suppose you walk into a bar and find four potential sex partners. Two are highly promiscuous; the others venture out only once a year. The promiscuous ones are, of course, more likely to be HIV-positive. That gives you a 50-50 chance of finding a relatively safe match.
But suppose all once-a-year revelers could be transformed into twice-a-year revelers. Then, on any given night, you'd run into twice as many of them. Those two promiscuous bar patrons would be outnumbered by four of their more cautious rivals. Your odds of a relatively safe match just went up from 50-50 to four out of six.
That's why increased activity by sexual conservatives can slow down the rate of infection and reduce the prevalence of AIDS. In fact, according to Professor Michael Kremer of MIT's economics department, the spread of AIDS in England could plausibly be retarded if everyone with fewer than about 2.25 partners per year were to take additional partners more frequently. That covers three-quarters of British heterosexuals between the ages of 18 and 45. (Much of this column is inspired by Professor Kremer's research.
If multiple partnerships save lives, then monogamy can be deadly. Imagine a country where almost all women are monogamous, while all men demand two female partners per year. Under those conditions, a few prostitutes end up servicing all the men. Before long, the prostitutes are infected; they pass the disease to the men; and the men bring it home to their monogamous wives. But if each of those monogamous wives was willing to take on one extramarital partner, the market for prostitution would die out, and the virus, unable to spread fast enough to maintain itself, might die out along with it.
Or consider Joan, who attended a party where she ought to have met the charming and healthy Martin. Unfortunately Fate, through its agents at the Centers for Disease Control, intervened. The morning of the party, Martin ran across one of those CDC-sponsored subway ads touting the virtues of abstinence. Chastened, he decided to stay home. In Martin's absence, Joan hooked up with the equally charming but considerably less prudent Maxwell--and Joan got AIDS. Abstinence can be even deadlier than monogamy.
If those subway ads are more effective against the cautious Martins than against the reckless Maxwells, then they are a threat to the hapless Joans. This is especially so when they displace Calvin Klein ads, which might have put Martin in a more socially beneficent mood.
You might object that even if Martin had dallied with Joan, he would only have freed Maxwell to prey on another equally innocent victim. To this there are two replies. First, we don't know that Maxwell would have found another partner: Without Joan, he might have struck out that night. Second, reducing the rate of HIV transmission is in any event not the only social goal worth pursuing: If it were, we'd outlaw sex entirely. What we really want is to minimize the number of infections resulting from any given number of sexual encounters; the flip side of this observation is that it is desirable to maximize the number of (consensual) sexual encounters leading up to any given number of infections. Even if Martin had failed to deny Maxwell a conquest that evening, and thus failed to slow the epidemic, he could at least have made someone happy.
To an economist, it's clear why people with limited sexual pasts choose to supply too little sex in the present: Their services are under priced. If sexual conservatives could effectively advertise their histories, HIV-conscious suitors would compete to lavish them with attention. But that doesn't happen, because such conservatives are hard to identify. Insufficiently rewarded for relaxing their standards, they relax their standards insufficiently.
So a socially valuable service is under-rewarded and therefore under-supplied. This is a problem we've experienced before. We face it whenever a producer fails to safeguard the environment.
Extrapolating from their usual response to environmental issues, I assume that liberals will want to attack the problem of excessive sexual restraint through coercive regulation. As a devotee of the price system, I'd prefer to encourage good behavior through an appropriate system of subsidies.
The question is: How do we subsidize Martin's sexual awakening without simultaneously subsidizing Maxwell's ongoing predations? Just paying people to have sex won't work--not with Maxwell around to reap the bulk of the rewards. The key is to subsidize something that is used in conjunction with sex and that Martin values more than Maxwell.
Quite plausibly, that something is condoms. Maxwell knows that he is more likely than Martin to be infected already, and hence probably values condoms less than Martin does. Subsidized condoms could be just the ticket for luring Martin out of his shell without stirring Maxwell to a new frenzy of activity.
As it happens, there is another reason to subsidize condoms: Condom use itself is under-rewarded. When you use one, you are protecting both yourself and your future partners, but you are rewarded (with a lower chance of infection) only for protecting yourself. Your future partners don't know about your past condom use and therefore can't reward it with extravagant courtship. That means you fail to capture the benefits you're conferring, and as a result, condoms are underused.
It is often argued that subsidized (or free) condoms have an upside and a downside: The upside is that they reduce the risk from a given encounter, and the downside is that they encourage more encounters. But it's plausible that in reality, that's not an upside and a downside--it's two upsides. Without the subsidies, people don't use enough condoms, and the sort of people who most value condoms don't have enough sex partners.
All these problems--along with the case for subsidies--would vanish if our sexual pasts could somehow be made visible, so that future partners could reward past prudence and thereby provide appropriate incentives. Perhaps technology can ultimately make that solution feasible. (I envision the pornography of the future: "Her skirt slid to the floor and his gaze came to rest on her thigh, where the embedded monitor read, 'This site has been accessed 314 times.' ") But until then, the best we can do is to make condoms inexpensive--and get rid of those subway ads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The book also tells us how taller men get more money and recognition as compared to their shorter counterparts and how a woman suffers financially because of her ugliness or obesity.
The shocking revelation by the author is how female children are the reason for divorces should be read by everyone.It seems that if a family has a male child , it is more stable. I simply think that this is sad.
For more , try this link...http://www.slate.com/id/2033/
(Rethinking) Gender
A growing number of Americans are taking their private struggles with their identities into the public realm. How those who believe they were born with the wrong bodies are forcing us to re-examine what it means to be male and female
May 21, 2007 issue - Growing up in Corinth, Miss., J. T. Hayes had A legacy to attend to. His dad was a well-known race-car driver and Hayes spent much of his childhood tinkering in the family's greasy garage, learning how to design and build cars. By the age of 10, he had started racing in his own right. Eventually Hayes won more than 500 regional and national championships in go-kart, midget and sprint racing, even making it to the NASCAR Winston Cup in the early '90s. But behind the trophies and the swagger of the racing circuit, Hayes was harboring a painful secret: he had always believed he was a woman. He had feminine features and a slight frame—at 5 feet 6 and 118 pounds he was downright dainty—and had always felt, psychologically, like a girl. Only his anatomy got in the way. Since childhood he'd wrestled with what to do about it. He'd slip on "girl clothes" he hid under the mattress and try his hand with makeup. But he knew he'd find little support in his conservative hometown.
In 1991, Hayes had a moment of truth. He was driving a sprint car on a dirt track in Little Rock when the car flipped end over end. "I was trapped upside down, engine throttle stuck, fuel running all over the racetrack and me," Hayes recalls. "The accident didn't scare me, but the thought that I hadn't lived life to its full potential just ran chill bumps up and down my body." That night he vowed to complete the transition to womanhood. Hayes kept racing while he sought therapy and started hormone treatments, hiding his growing breasts under an Ace bandage and baggy T shirts.
Finally, in 1994, at 30, Hayes raced on a Saturday night in Memphis, then drove to Colorado the next day for sex-reassignment surgery, selling his prized race car to pay the tab. Hayes chose the name Terri O'Connell and began a new life as a woman who figured her racing days were over. But she had no idea what else to do. Eventually, O'Connell got a job at the mall selling women's handbags for $8 an hour. O'Connell still hopes to race again, but she knows the odds are long: "Transgendered and professional motor sports just don't go together."
To most of us, gender comes as naturally as breathing. We have no quarrel with the "M" or the "F" on our birth certificates. And, crash diets aside, we've made peace with how we want the world to see us—pants or skirt, boa or blazer, spiky heels or sneakers. But to those who consider themselves transgender, there's a disconnect between the sex they were assigned at birth and the way they see or express themselves. Though their numbers are relatively few—the most generous estimate from the National Center for Transgender Equality is between 750,000 and 3 million Americans (fewer than 1 percent)—many of them are taking their intimate struggles public for the first time. In April, L.A. Times sportswriter Mike Penner announced in his column that when he returned from vacation, he would do so as a woman, Christine Daniels. Nine states plus Washington, D.C., have enacted antidiscrimination laws that protect transgender people—and an additional three states have legislation pending, according to the Human Rights Campaign. And this month the U.S. House of Representatives passed a hate-crimes prevention bill that included "gender identity." Today's transgender Americans go far beyond the old stereotypes (think "Rocky Horror Picture Show"). They are soccer moms, ministers, teachers, politicians, even young children. Their push for tolerance and acceptance is reshaping businesses, sports, schools and families. It's also raising new questions about just what makes us male or female.
What is gender anyway? It is certainly more than the physical details of what's between our legs. History and science suggest that gender is more subtle and more complicated than anatomy. (It's separate from sexual orientation, too, which determines which sex we're attracted to.) Gender helps us organize the world into two boxes, his and hers, and gives us a way of quickly sizing up every person we see on the street. "Gender is a way of making the world secure," says feminist scholar Judith Butler, a rhetoric professor at University of California, Berkeley. Though some scholars like Butler consider gender largely a social construct, others increasingly see it as a complex interplay of biology, genes, hormones and culture.
More Sex Is Safer Sex - By Steven E. Landsburg - Slate Magazine
http://www.slate.com/id/2033/
Shocking revelations come to light .Freakonomics has found its sequel !
http://www.slate.com/?id=3944&cp=2025&nav=navom
basically , if you dont want to buy his book , this link has all of his articles that he has published in his book "More Sex is safer sex "
Shocking revelations come to light .Freakonomics has found its sequel !
http://www.slate.com/?id=3944&cp=2025&nav=navom
basically , if you dont want to buy his book , this link has all of his articles that he has published in his book "More Sex is safer sex "
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Life in a Metro (LIAM)
| Rating: | ★★★ |
| Category: | Movies |
| Genre: | Drama |
Also , gays do not shock us anymore.So stop using them for shock value alone.
Ok , let me just say that I like the direction in which mainstream cinema is moving in bollywood.Its becoming less masala and more arty !
LIAM , is just one of those movies.The story is about a bunch of people whose lives are intricately interweved with each others in ways that they dont even understand.
K.K.Menon and Shilpa Shetty are married , but emotionally divorced.Shilpa's sister Konkona sen , is a thirty something virgin desperate for some love in her life.Her roommate is Kangana Ranaut who is having an affair with her boss, and Sherman is the guy with loose ethics who is madly in love with her.Irrfan Khan is the antiseducer who turns off Konkona with his weirdness.Shiney Ahuja is the theatre actor who falls for Shilpa Shetty .And finally You have a unconvincing and wincing in pain love story of Nafisa ali and Dharmendar (who are by the way very old)
Irrfan and konkona provide the comedy in this movie.In a classic scene , Irrfan meets Konkona , where he plays a perfect anti-seducer .He stares at her breasts , he lies , he bores her to death and tells her that he likes her very much.Konkona rejects him but does not realise that there is a future for this unconventional relationship.
K.K Menon is as usual very good.He plays the perfect male chauvinist pig that women love to hate , and he does it convincingly ! Shilpa Shetty , God ! I've never seen a better waist on a bollywood actress ! Her acting is also commendable.
Konkona , aaah ! You can connect with her plight .She believes in love and is desperately searching for it.Her heart is broken and now fears falling in love.
Sherman Joshi , is an opportunistic young man with money on his mind and loose morals and ethics .He is a call centre employee , who would do anything to get ahead and make more money.But even he gets his dose of reality when the love of his life is found sleeping with someone else.
A small note.People in call centres will surely not appreciate the portrayal of promiscuity and loose morals.
Shiney Ahuja , is a theatre actor , whose dreams of making it big have soured.His friendship with the married Shilpa Shetty and consequent love will lead to disaster.Again his acting is impeccable , especially the theatre scene where he is spouting dialogues in full vim and vigour only to be disturbed repeatedly.
Kangana , so beautiful....Drooooool.....she has fallen in love with the wrong guy , then wants to break out of the relationship.Why is she always given the slutty role ? C'mon ....Kanagana , I'm sorry I'll have to call your acting a bit wooden.
Finally , Dharmendar and Nafisa Ali .Lovers who meet after forty something years...They even elope and live together, and GASP ! Kiss ...Me and the guys closed our eyes when they kissed.We were simply not ready to watch 60 + people kissing.The subject was not very convincing and again Dharmendar was rendering dialogues in a style reminiscent to his "Kutte , Kaminey " days.
Scenes to watch out for...Konkona and Irrfan's on screen chemistry.Shiney Ahuja's theatre scene and and finally the bollywood Ishtyle climax, where there are high speed car chases , a horse chase and lotsa emo-ketchup.
Music wise , Producers have given Pritam complete freedom and it shows.The music is pure rock .No gratuitous and compulsory Bhangra and no rap.Its pure Rock.AND IT ROCKS. Watch out for Alvida , which starts after Sherman's heart is broken.Though I like the "Alvida " sung by KK , The director has chosen the James reprise of Alvida.
Finally , the climatic song "Kar Salaam " simply does not fit with the last scene of Shiney dropping down dejected."Kar Salaam " is a celebratory song , and Shiney is not celebrating !
this vido will teach you how not to do a back flip
this vido will teach you how not to do a back flip
Backflip Tutorial
----WARNING DISCLAIMER----
THIS TUTORIAL IS A GUIDE ONLY. IF YOU ATTEMPT TO RECREATE SUCH STUNTS AS PORTRAYED IN THIS VIDEO, IT IS YOUR OWN FAULT. ANY INJURIES SUSTAINED FROM USING THIS GUIDE ARE YOUR OWN FAULT. WE ARE NOT LIABLE FOR ANY INJURIES SUSTAINED FROM THE USE OF THIS VIDEO. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED. THIS IS ONLY A GUIDE. PLEASE LEARN IN A GYMNASTICS CENTER.
----END WARNING DISCLAIMER----
A unique backflip tutorial that uses both video examples, and instructional text. We teach Sil how to do a backflip (who has only ever done them on trampolines before), and you can follow the steps one by one, to see what you are doing wrong!
NOTE: Turning your palms to the outside in the set is personal preference - Some people like to do it this way, as it can help you lock your shoulders when you jump up, but it is not necessary.
Also this tutorial is designed for trickers or other athletic people interested in learning how to do a basic backflip - if you are a gymnast you should learn the absolute "gymnast" way at a gymnastics centre (focuses alot more on form)
Finally, this tutorial was created through the knowledge of many people, I do not claim to be a professional coach who knows everything about backflips. We created this tutorial and the concepts in it from just dinking around at open nights at various gyms club. When we first learned backflips we were told to just try it, and thats what happened - it was from there that we learned how to spot and do them better.
Feel free to ask me any questions on how to do backflips. And don't forget to rate! :-)
Good luck and stay safe! Remember to use a spotter at first!
Keywords: Backflip, back flip, tutorial, lesson, instructional, gymnastics, tricking, tumbling, back tuck, backtuck, tutorials, flipping.
www.evolutionstopshere.com
Friday, May 11, 2007
Virgin: The Untouched History
by Hanne Blank (Author)
Starred Review. By any material reckoning, virginity does not exist," writes Blank in this informative, funny and provocative analysis of one of the most elusive—and prized—qualities of human sexuality. Blank, an independent scholar, has pieced together a history of how humans have constructed the idea of virginity (almost always female and heterosexual) and engineered its uses to suit cultural and political forces. Blank has no shortage of fascinating facts: since Western virginity was symbolized by the color white, missionaries viewed nonwhite peoples as sexually immoral; late medieval and Renaissance moralists thought they could detect whether a woman was a virgin by examining her urine ("a virgin's was clear, sparkling, and thin"). Blank also has a pleasing, highly readable style that allows her to convey large amounts of information with wit and agility. But she becomes most animated, and political, when she probes contemporary ideas about virginity. Taking on a range of questions—why is virginity considered sexy? how does the idea of virginity fuel violence against women?—she makes the case that contemporary culture is as obsessed with, and benighted about, virginity, as those of the past. Thoroughly researched, carefully argued and written with a sly sense of humor, this is a bright addition to the popular literature of women's and cultural studies. (Mar.)
Lust in Translation: The Rules of Infidelity from Tokyo to Tennessee.
These are just a few of the cultural excuses for cheating on one's spouse as recorded by Pamela Druckerman, author of a new comparative look at infidelity titled "Lust in Translation: The Rules of Infidelity from Tokyo to Tennessee."
On a world scale, men in African countries from Togo to Mozambique were most likely to have taken another sexual partner in the last 12 months, with as many as 37 percent saying they had been unfaithful in that time, according to data compiled by Druckerman.
While the French may be the first to eroticize illicit sex in movies and books, only 3.8 of married men and 2 percent of women in France admitted to having affairs.
They were outdone by the strait-laced citizens of the United States, where acknowledged rates of cheating came to 3.9 percent of men and 3.1 percent of women. But on a national average, U.S. adulterers were much more likely to beat themselves up over it.
A former Wall Street Journal reporter who has worked in Europe, the Middle East and Latin America, U.S. expat Druckerman was struck by her own strong reactions against the idea of infidelity as compared to more cavalier attitudes abroad.
"I thought you could often understand a country better by looking at the rules in people's private lives. It really reveals the values of a culture," Druckerman said in an interview.
"Americans have gotten more tolerant on practically every major sexual issue from having a child out of wedlock to divorce ... and homosexuality," she said. "We're more accepting of all these issues except infidelity, where we've gotten stricter."
Even more telling were views on the evils of adultery. While some 6 percent of Americans in one survey said it was acceptable to cheat in some or all circumstances, nearly 40 percent of Russians polled saw no problem with it.
On a broad scale, men in poorer countries were the most likely to cheat, or in places rife with political and economic upheaval such as Russia or China.
But within countries, rates of cheating varied hugely within sub-cultures or even city neighborhoods, Druckerman's found.
"Much more important than any religious law or law of the land is what your friends and colleagues are doing," she said.
Filled with titillating anecdotes -- including the story of a 1950s housewife who would arrange double dates with her husband, her lover and his wife -- Druckerman most closely compares her findings overseas with U.S. mores.
In particular, Americans seem to adhere to a well-defined script on adultery in which sex outside the marriage amounts to the ultimate act of dishonesty, one that could require years of repentance and therapy to resolve, Druckerman said.
"The message is even a one-night stand can paralyze a marriage," she said. "Then you have this idea in America that you're sort of bursting with this knowledge of the affair and can never be whole until you confess."
"I tend to be sympathetic to the French idea that some truths are better left unspoken."
Editorial Reviews
From Publishers Weekly
Former foreign correspondent for the Wall Street Journal now living in Paris, Druckerman offers an anecdotal rather than a scholarly exploration of the international etiquette of adultery. From American prudishness about the subject to French discretion, and from Russian vehemence about the obligatory affair to Japanese adherence to the single marital futon, one factor rings true in all cases: people lie about sex. Druckerman interviews numerous adulterers, starting with the conflicted Americans who "gain status by radiating an aura of monogamy" while sneaking around on the side; guilt more often than not brings them to confession and absolution by therapy. Druckerman is at pains to uncover reliable statistics about infidelity where such research is suppressed, such as in Islamic countries or those formerly Communist; in contrast, Finland demonstrates the best sex research, e.g., clearly half of men there enjoy "parallel relationships." Druckerman concludes from one study that people in warmer climes cheat more (Scandinavia is the exception), while people in wealthy countries tend to cheat less than those in poor countries (exception: Kazakhstan). Druckerman found that the rules of sexual cultures differ widely: adultery is the least dangerous social evil in Russia, while in Japan, buying sex doesn't count as cheating. Druckerman's work is quirky, digressive and media quotable. (Apr.)
Former foreign correspondent for the Wall Street Journal now living in Paris, Druckerman offers an anecdotal rather than a scholarly exploration of the international etiquette of adultery. From American prudishness about the subject to French discretion, and from Russian vehemence about the obligatory affair to Japanese adherence to the single marital futon, one factor rings true in all cases: people lie about sex. Druckerman interviews numerous adulterers, starting with the conflicted Americans who "gain status by radiating an aura of monogamy" while sneaking around on the side; guilt more often than not brings them to confession and absolution by therapy. Druckerman is at pains to uncover reliable statistics about infidelity where such research is suppressed, such as in Islamic countries or those formerly Communist; in contrast, Finland demonstrates the best sex research, e.g., clearly half of men there enjoy "parallel relationships." Druckerman concludes from one study that people in warmer climes cheat more (Scandinavia is the exception), while people in wealthy countries tend to cheat less than those in poor countries (exception: Kazakhstan). Druckerman found that the rules of sexual cultures differ widely: adultery is the least dangerous social evil in Russia, while in Japan, buying sex doesn't count as cheating. Druckerman's work is quirky, digressive and media quotable. (Apr.)
Photo Restoration, Photo Manipulation, Photo Retouching, Photo Art, Photo Collage, Photo Slide Show, Age Progression...
http://www.phojoe.com/index.html
Make yerself purty ! But remember y'all , this ain't free.It's gonna cost you some moolah ....
Similarly , another link is ...http://www.touchofglamour.com/
If you don't wanna pay , then download GIMP from the net and beg that computer nerd friend of yours to teach you how to make urself purty again.
Make yerself purty ! But remember y'all , this ain't free.It's gonna cost you some moolah ....
Similarly , another link is ...http://www.touchofglamour.com/
If you don't wanna pay , then download GIMP from the net and beg that computer nerd friend of yours to teach you how to make urself purty again.
Hotel California - Eagles (How to play; Guitar Solo)
Me directin' the guitar solo of "Hotel California"
from album; Hotel California / EAGLES (1976).
Equipments for this video;
Greco Stratocaster '78 customised old guitar,
Marshall 1989's JCM amp with Pedals;
Fuzz, Phaser, EQ, Comp and Reverb.
!!! NOTICE !!!
This is for ONLY beginner guitarists and my buddies who requested this to me.
I'm not certain how you understand my English and guitar plays, so I'm poor at speak in English well. besides...sometime I got a few mistakes in this video. :D
I just played this song 'cause I had wanted to show purely a lot of people this song is really great and hope to want a lot of people to play this song.
I'll dedicate this to my buddies and guitar players anyway, Thanks.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Bump Key HOWTO
How to make and use a bump key. Opens nearly any lock in seconds, and much easier to do than lock picking. http://www.tlarson.com/blog
Kaante - Socha nahi ta
One of my all time favourite rock songs...dripping in melancholy and sadness over betrayal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)