It’s not like aliens put up a welcome banner or anything, but scientists now have newly identified at least one planet that could potentially sustain life.
Until the events of September 11 and the anthrax attacks of 2001, biological weapons had never been a major public concern in the United States. Today, the possibility of their use by terrorists against Western states looms large as an international security concern. In Biological Weapons, Jeanne Guillemin provides a highly accessible and compelling account of the circumstances under which scientists, soldiers, and statesmen were able to mobilize resources for extensive biological weapons programs and analyzes why such weapons, targeted against civilians, were never used in a major conflict.
This book is essential for understanding the relevance of the historical restraints placed on the use of biological weapons for today’s world. It serves as an excellent introduction to the problems biological weapons pose for contemporary policymakers and public officials, particularly in the United States. How can we best deter the use of such weapons? What are the resulting policies of the Department of Homeland Security? How can we constrain proliferation? Jeanne Guillemin wisely points out that these are vitally important questions for all Americans to consider and investigate—all the more so because the development of these weapons has been carried out under a veil of secrecy, with their frightening potential open to exploitation by the media and government. Public awareness through education can help calm fears in today’s tension-filled climate and promote constructive political action to cut the risks of a biological weapons catastrophe.
Biological Weapons is required reading for every concerned citizen, government policymaker, public health official, and national security analyst who wants to understand this complex and timely issue.
This is an intuitive look into an accidental stumble, by a former financial analyst, into something that has become quite possibly the future of classroom interaction. He points out various flaws in the teaching of math and various other subjects ranging from the “human-less” classroom to the child left behind. This to me is a very fundamental problem being solved, yet teachers and school systems won’t try it. This is most likely the only time, as a Republican, that I’ll admit that democratic education has its benefit. However, it most likely will never catch on in the US. Khan’s software is even a free service. This is by far a very interesting talk, demonstration, and interview from TEDTalks. Check it out.
I stumbled across this documentary the other day and it truly caught my eye. A lot of what is being said in it, if you get a chance to watch it fully somehow (below is just the trailer), is something I have believed for quite a while. I’ll get this out first thing, they do advocate a fully vegetarian diet. This is something that I’m not 100% in favor of personally because I see eating meat as healthy and naturally. Does it mean there is a point where too much is bad? Of course, too much of anything can be harmful. However, the benefits of healthy eating is a human body that protects itself. (i.e. orthomedical, look it up)
Food Matters™ talks about the failure of modern medicine to notice, as one of the commentators says, “the rhino in the room” (i.e. nutrition). This seems like a simple thing, however, the statistics show that only 6% of MDs have any background, or training for that matter, in nutrition. This documentary will explain that a majority of problems are caused by malnutrition. Even the need for herbicides and pesticides for plants, something I never considered. One commentator made the statement that the recommended dosage in Australia for Vitamin C “is the minimal amount necessary to prevent scurvy, and yet we still have scurvy.” It seems to me that the doctors are missing a piece of the puzzle. Or have we all forgotten, in this world of fast food, the statement “you are what you eat?”
An important piece of information in this documentary, which I had never heard but largely makes sense, is that cooking your food actually forces nutrients out. This means when you steam your vegetables your actually robbing your body of vital nutrients. I’m not one to advocate super raw foods, or even vegetarian diets (as stated above). Those that truly know me, know that I love food. It doesn’t matter what it is, if it smells good I’ll eat it. Italian, Mexican, Japanese, Chinese, Malaysian, Paraguayan, Germany, British, Irish, American you name it I’ve probably eaten it. The point in the documentary is not to turn everyone into vegetarians. They understand meat lovers, like myself, will never fully turn. However, its important to note that the human body needs about 51% of its diet to be raw unprocessed foods (i.e. salads, vegetables, herbs, etc). This is a very simple process of eating a salad for lunch and one at dinner. Not a small side salad, but about 50% portion of your meal.
How does this pertain to me? First, as a child I was diagnosed with ADHD. My parents researched everything to find a means to control my over-hyperactivity. They did so by controlling my diet. I ate largely non-processed, non-dairy, and non-soy. Why non-soy? Soy was the worst of my reactions, and is quite possibly in everything under the sun in North America. I’d start with my ears clocking up and end with me scratching my body like a drug addict. My body, and anyone with ADHD, are drug addicted to foods that cause our reactions. I’ve virtually controlled it by maintain this very diet my parents raised me on. This is something many folks can learn from, instead of turning to Ritalin (i.e. drugs) change your nutrient.
This video, and my philosophy in general on most modern things, does not attack drugs or pharmaceutical companies as being “bad”. Drugs are a great invention of the industrial age. The problem, in the nuclear age, is that we’ve become taught that drugs are always the answer. Your fat, take this pill. You can’t fall asleep, take this pill. Etc, etc, etc. You’ve forgotten a very simple equation. One of my roommates in Washington put it very plainly, “food is meant to recharge, to replenish.” When did we forget this? I’m not quite sure, but an issue of a post-industrial society is that we think the more processed the better for us. Drugs are not bad for us, vaccines for various diseases are a great advancement in human health. But, there comes a point when it is too much. My personal philosophy on drugs is don’t take it if you don’t have to. The body is a natural healer, and I see drugs as inhibiting that process (I’ll say occasionally). Anti-bacterial, anti-viral, and, of course, pain pills are drugs you should take. However, a little muscle soreness from exercise does not merit taking an Advil.
Take it from a guy that loves his meat and potatoes. Check this video out you’ll never look at fast food again.
Byte Rights: STREISAND’S HOUSE [PICS!]. A short and witty look into internet censorship, and of course the results “Anonymous”. As the say history repeats, lets heed the prophetic words of that beaten horse Nostradamus by quoting: “those that begin by burning books, end by burning men.” China censors, let’s be a beacon not like them.
Google is known for its smart and creative holiday graphics, or as many call them “doodle.” This past Father’s day, yesterday, Google’s doodle was a simple design with a tie instead of the letter “l”. (shown on the left). However, as the article “Google Offends Sons and Daughters with Father’s Day Doodle” from Maximum PC, shows that people have apparently been offended by the doodle.
The article largely states a position by the International Business Times stated that the doodle was a “failure”. They saw no offense in the doodle itself, but rather the plug for Google Voice. As the mouse-over reads, shown on the right, “Dad. Father. Pops. No matter what you call him, call your dad from Gmail.” IBT cited this as offensive because it “shamelessly hawking Google Voice… If Google now wants to exploit holidays for financial gain, it can expect to lose coolness points in the eyes of the public.” There are two interesting facts about this comment by IBT that shows a large disconnect between their knowledge of the holiday and of Google’s services. First point, Google Voice is a free service. It costs users nothing to call there dad’s on Father’s Day, and Google is really only providing a link. Showcasing Google’s mastery of the non-invasive advertising. Second point, Father’s Day was created not for honoring your father, but to sell merchandise that you buy for your dad.
So a very short recap on IBT’s so-called “failure” announcement. IBT accused Google of advertising, for financial gain, a free service on their own website that they offer. And second, the point of Father’s Day (and most holidays for that matter in the 21st century) are for the sell of merchandise. Therefore, accusing a company of using a holiday for financial gain is similar to saying Macy exploits Thanksgiving with the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade (hmmm shocker?).
Now on to the comments that Maximum PC reports about the criticism towards the doodle’s. These complaints are well, childish at best. This is the snipped from the article:
“Is there a way to get rid of this reminder to call a relative who, to me, doesn’t exist beyond the basic biological level?,” one user complained. “I very recently lost my dad and while I understand the sentiment, having that ‘reminder’ there is incredibly mocking,” wrote another.
IBT argues that since Google is the most popular website in the U.S., it must be sensitive to as many people as possible. That’s true, but what’s your take on the Father’s Day doodle? Did Google do anything wrong, or are people overreacting?
I see an epic blockbuster trailer announcer saying, “In a world where political correctness and nazy pansies run rampant.” Okay, besides the comedy on to my point. As IBT stated, Google should be more “sensitive to as many people as possible.” I understand this statement, Google should appeal to the masses on sensitive issues and guarder restraint towards that sensitivity. The lacking point here, again from IBT, is that the majority of people celebrate Father’s Day, and did not find the Google Voice advertisement offensive. After all Google is a company out to make a profit.
As for the comments that the doodle was offensive because it reminded them that they had lost a father, or reminded them that their real father was less than dirt (so to speak). Is the internet ruled by an aristocracy in which the sensitivity of the few, merit changing everything? I think no. To end this I leave with a comment left on Maximum PC by “jorleans”, which sums up my feelings on the matter.
You recently lost your father? It’s a personal tragedy. I’ve lost family members and I feel for you. But don’t expect a National Day of Mourning. You had to know Father’s Day was coming and that people would be taking their fathers to brunch or corporations were going to advertise their products as a great Father’s Day gift. For the vast number of people out there who still have living fathers, Google simply provided a link so that one could call from his or her computer. Trust me, they did not do it just to insult you.